Introduction, Screen, Battery and Design

As impressed as we were with the TomTom Runner and Multi-Sport, it was obvious at the time that there was plenty of room for improvement.

A year later and TomTom is refreshing its watches with the new "Cardio" versions, which bring all the familiar features of the first two but with one big added extra - a built-in heart rate monitor.

Not just that, but (so far) a highly accurate one. The original Runner and Multi-Sport could be paired with a separate heart rate monitor but wrapping that strap around yourself and pairing it with the watch was a lot of extra hassle.

Like the original sports watches, the TomTom Runner Cardio is focused on, well, running, while the Multi-Sport throws in added features for tracking cycling and swimming. As a cycling device it works well, and can even be synced withTomTom's wheel-mounted cadence tracker.

Update: The TomTom Cardio Run 8RA0 running watch has been out for some months now, it's had a few updates, and now costs £170, can it still give the opposition from Garmin and Polar a run for their money?

Screen and Battery Life

Battery life is okay. I got something like six to seven hours of use per charge. However, while that might not sound like a lot, this isn't a smartwatch that you'd wear outside of training - it's far too chunky for one thing.

This is an exercise companion that you'll strap on when you stick your running shoes on and slip off at the end. Most users will sync this every time they train, and plugging in via USB also charges it up, of course. That's if you use USB - Bluetooth syncing between the watch and its mobile app is also possible and this means your heart rate data will also now be transferred over quickly with the rest of your workout stats.

There's no touchscreen here or indeed buttons, just a large joystick-style pad at the base of the watch. It's a fairly left-field navigation method, but the UI is pretty intuitive, the monochrome LCD screen providing good contrast even in badly lit conditions.

If anything the screen is too minimalist, although I'm not sure that's an acceptable criticism for a running watch, but there's small examples where more data would be nice - like checking the battery charge requires a back-press to bring up a screen with software version detail as well. Checking the battery shouldn't be the same as checking your software version...

Design, Build Quality and Strap Comfort

As you've probably guessed from the photos, TomTom hasn't gone for anything radically new in design.

It's a bold design that has arguably dated fast (the TomTom Runner Cardio came out in May 2014), but the red highlights and black strap don't immediately embarrass on the road.

The strap is removable and swappable for a small range of signature colours, and improves on the previous model, which suffered from a loose fit. The main watch unit is now held in a lot more securely (a gripe I had with the first watches) so it'll no longer slip out unless you apply a fair bit of pressure.

This plugs into a sizeable charging sled with an inbuilt USB cable, which you'll be carrying around a lot, and this again dates the tech here - many competitors now have a sled with microUSB plug to minimise the number of cables you're dragging around, and this system also reduces the likelihood of cable failure as it twists around the base of the charger.

On the plus side, the unit sits on the desk upright so you can see charging progress easily, although you can't operate the watch while it's connected.

Fitness Tracking

What's it like as a running watch?

The broad band hitches on easily with the unusual triple-buckle, then a quick tap right on the odd but surprisingly usable joypad takes you into sport selection mode.

There's Run and Treadmill (outdoor and indoor), the former if selected brings up the GPS lock screen, the latter, freed from the GPS chip, gives you an instant 'go'.

While you're waiting on the GPS you've got plenty of time to head over (down) into training, where you've got the chance to race your previous PBs, chase down new goals saved via the desktop, run laps/intervals or train to HR zones.

It's a good spread of training options, and relatively easy to navigate, select and create. TomTom has done well here. However, at times the Multi-Sport Cardio can take several minutes to get going. It's frustrating, because on other occasions, in the same place, it takes just seconds.

You can turn on assisted GPS via TomTom's mobile app (it syncs with the wearable via Bluetooth) but otherwise you're in for a wait. The other issue, which is not unique to this by any means, is that it struggles to track your elevation. So if you're taking on mighty hills, it thinks you've climbed a molehill, and conversely, it'll sometimes think a perfectly flat road is Mount Etna.

There is a version of this with an altimeter but that pushes the price to £329. Testing this device against newer watches really showed this up - GPS lock often took the TomTom 3-4 minutes longer than other running watches from Garmin and Suunto.

The UI still hasn't been updated to allow a 'skip' function, so you can get moving to stay warm. Once you've cleared that hurdle though, the TomTom is actually a very good running watch - the screen is nice and clear, the weird joypad actually quite easy to operate (at least till winter gloves are needed), and tabbing between the screens of handy data such as split times, HR, distance, time, time to goal, etc on the move is intuitive and easy.

Heart Rate Tracking

But enough on the cosmetics - how good is that heart rate monitor? First thing, in order to get the monitor working you need to make sure the watch is strapped snugly above the wrist bone.

This ensures it will get a clear reading of your pulse, which it does through two green LEDs on the back that calculate your heart rate by detecting changes in blood flow. It's pretty cool stuff.

You'll want to make sure the watch is tight enough to prevent it moving about on your workout. Luckily the watch fits comfortably around the arm so that shouldn't be much of an issue, but letting it slip down will mean a loss of accuracy.

I found that it didn't take long for the watch to find and display my heart rate, and it was easy to monitor the all-important "zone" I was in when running or pumpin' iron - a "treadmill" setting lets you use the watch without GPS, in the gym or home.

On my test run I strapped last year's TomTom Runner onto my other wrist and strapped a heart rate monitor to my chest so I could compare the results. As it turned out, the readings were consistently close and often identical (the Cardio watch tended to be a couple of seconds behind in bpm adjustments, which I would have expected anyway).

But that wasn't enough assurance for me, so I also tested the Multi-Sport Cardio's heart rate monitor against a hospital ECG machine. Once again, the results were impressively in sync.

The new monitor also means you can train in your optimal heart rate zone - easy, fat burn, endure, speed and sprint - and the watch will alert you if you need to speed up or slow down. Zones are calculated based on your age and are not user definable but if you're not an elite athlete, that's probably not an issue.

That's if you use USB - Bluetooth syncing between the watch and its mobile app is also possible and this means your heart rate data will also now be transferred over quickly with the rest of your workout stats.

App, Additional Features and Verdict

TomTom app

In a move that will surprise nobody, TomTom has MySports apps for iOS , Android and MySports Connect software PC/Mac desktops.

I tested the Mac desktop and paired it with the Android app. The Android app is relatively simple, but once paired with your device gives you a convenient way to upload and sync your sessions, and the data that's available is decent enough.

In 'Activities' you have a chronological list of recorded runs, showing distance and duration, which once clicked through bring you a deeper level of data such as calories burned, pace, elevation, HR and stride. There's a nice splits vs laps display, and a handy graph where you can map HR to speed via the dropdowns, which is an interesting exercise.

There's also a map, which shows up the GPS chip again with a series of 'running in the river' moments, interspersed with cutting through buildings and avoiding bridges, as the error correction straight lines between plot points.

Overall it's a decent app, but nothing that an Endomondo or Runsense doesn't deliver too. The desktop (on Mac at least) feels clunkier, and can take a while to connect and sync. Once you're in you've got a similar activity interface, but with a crucial addition - a 'race this' button, which allows you to load a specific route back into the watch as a 'Race' for you to beat.

However, there's no function to construct your own 'race' without tracking it first, or to follow other people's 'races' and compete against them, such as with Endomondo, Strava, etc.

Overall it's not a bad desktop experience, but it does require a fair bit of syncing action to uncover fairly sparse stats, and by adding the 'Race this' button to the mobile app they would provide similar levels of insight.

Additional Features

Another major plus point of the TomTom is that it doesn't try and do anything else - all other sports have been stripped out in favour of the running.

There's no smartphone alerts, no sleep tracking, no activity tracker. Just running, time and date, oh, and a stopwatch. That's great news, because it's too large to be worn in general social situations anyway, and it's a very good running watch without diluting itself with other junk.

Overall I liked the single-mindedness of it.

We liked

It's the best HR wrist sensor I've used - consistently within 1 BPM of a chest strap. The UI is very logical and it's really super-simple to get up and running - in fact waiting for satellite lock is the longest part of the process. The app is good as well.

We disliked

Surprisingly for the brand, GPS is pretty poor -- without regular syncing with a desktop or mobile app to handover your coordinates this watch takes a long time to get a satellite lock. In winter that's not very funny. It's also quite bulky, by no means a subtle device, and although its comfy enough when worn it's a big beast to truck around. Battery life is also no up to scratch, seven hours or less isn't really good enough. You might get a week's worth of runs out of it, but only just, and I found occasional random battery drain (admittedly on an older test model) stymied my plans to run with it.

Verdict

The heart rate monitor is accurate enough, kept in the optimum position by the broad strap. The watch is comfortable in use and prices have dropped considerably from the TomTom's launch.

However, the look is slightly dated, and I found the GPS pretty sketchy - a shame when so many running watches suffer from the opposite issue (terrible HR monitor, great GPS).

With a better GPS and slightly less bulk this would be an excellent running watch, but you could argue that Suunto, Polar and Garmin's top-end offerings offer similar or better results but with less compromise.

Features and performance

Smart heating systems are all the rage these days. Every home should have one. But it's only when you start using something like Nest, Tado, Hive, Honeywell's Evohome or Heat Genius for several months that you realise just how wasteful your old, dumb central heating can be.

A traditional heating system typically operates with a thermostat and a seven-day programmable timer. For each day, you'll preset the times at which you want the heating to switch on and off, and specify the overall temperature you'd like your house to reach. The heating then cycles through this timed program, blindly following the settings whether anyone's in the house or not.

A smart thermostat like Nest gives you more control. It learns and adapts to your occupancy schedule, adjusting your home's heating accordingly, and it also enables you to wirelessly control your home's temperature remotely. Staying out late? Nobody home? You can switch your heating off to save money using an app on your smartphone.

Heat Genius is arguably smarter still.

Features

Designed and built in the UK, Heat Genius is a modular system that can be augmented to control your heating, hot water and even plug-in appliances/devices. At its heart, the basic £249 Genius Hub Kit consists of a Heat Genius boiler controller, wireless thermostat and the Genius Hub, a brick-sized plastic box that plugs into your broadband router.

If your boiler uses a standard backplate the boiler controllers can be swapped over fairly easily. If not (and mine wasn't), you can get Heat Genius, or an electrician, to install it for you – this will obviously incur an extra cost.

Once the controller and the Hub have been installed, this basic setup enables you to set a timed seven-day heating schedule via a sky-blue web app on the Heat Genius website, or using the HG mobile app, which is available for iOS and Android devices.

The app enables you to specify a default temperature for your house, or add a series of Heating Periods and temperatures that suit your schedule – for example, switching the heating on in the morning, off when you go out to work, and back on again in the evening.

With the facility to quickly copy any Heating Period to another day and override any default timings to temporarily boost the temperature, programming and using the system via the app is almost effortless. Heating Periods are displayed in a graphical timeline, and you can view a handy chart that tracks the 'Whole House' temperature (as recorded by the wireless thermostat) day by day.

This may not sound very 'smart' so far. But Heat Genius starts to stand out from the clever-clogs heating crowd when you add 'zoned' and 'smart' heating functionality to it. This means investing in some extra kit – wireless thermostatic radiator valves (£59.99 each) to control individual radiators and wireless PIR (passive infrared) sensors (£34.99 each) to track occupancy.

It's worth it – zoned heating is one of the system's biggest draws. With most heating systems, smart or otherwise, your radiators are either all on or they're all off; there's no middle ground. So if you live in a three-bedroom house, but you don't regularly use two of the bedrooms, you're wasting money heating them. Add wireless thermostatic radiator valves to your radiators and the Heat Genius system can control them individually.

Zoned heating

In our test setup, for example, we installed five wireless valves and created additional room profiles within the app: Living Room, Dining Room, Master Bedroom, Bedroom 2 and Bedroom 3.

Each room has its own seven-day timer, enabling it to have its own heating schedule and unique temperature settings. So, for example, while the heating in the living room would remain set to 20 degrees from 6pm to 11pm, the heating in the dining room would go off after 7.30pm when nobody was using it. The kids' bedrooms would start cooling down after 8pm, while the master bedroom wouldn't start heating up until 10pm.

With this 'zoned heating' approach, you can heat only the rooms you actually use, potentially saving you energy and money.

Each room has four settings: Off, Timer, Footprint and Override. We've covered the Timer mode, and the Override mode enables you to boost the heating for a specified period, say an hour. The Footprint mode is the most interesting of the bunch, as it takes control out of your hands and puts an algorithm in charge.

With additional PIR/temperature sensors, not only can a full Heat Genius system track the temperature in a room more accurately, it can also monitor a room's usage. With room sensors and the Footprint mode engaged, the Heat Genius box watches when you use the rooms in your home and learns your schedule. This enables it to predict when you're in and when you're out, and what rooms need heating and for how long.

It can also link rooms together, so that multiple rooms heat up at the same time – perhaps the children's rooms, or the kitchen and the dining room. The system also factors in local weather data, which you can see on the app, so it knows how long to preheat a room. In the winter, a frost protection feature prevents the temperature from dipping below 4 degrees C.

Performance

Footprint could be the system's killer feature, and it works (for the most part), although I found that I reverted to the Timer setting after a while, partly because I wanted more regimented control over heating periods and partly because I didn't fully trust Footprint. Radiators didn't seem to switch off when a room was vacated, or the heating didn't kick in when a room was suddenly used.

Both the PIR sensor and the thermostatic radiator valves take time to react, and ultimately I preferred the reliability of a timed schedule. Even without the Footprint mode and its learning algorithm, Heat Genius still gives you the ability to program and control your heating system over the internet, track the temperature in multiple rooms and heat/cool those rooms individually.

As a bonus, the system also enables you to program and control smart plugs (£29.99 each), which you can connect to lamps or appliances. It's a significantly more expensive solution than, say, a Masterplug Plug-In Mechanical Daily 24 Hour Timer from Screwfix (£4.99) – but you can't remotely adjust a Masterplug over the internet.

Verdict

Heat Genius gives you unprecedented control over your heating system, so much so that you'll find yourself playing with the app every chance you get for the first few weeks, checking the temperature/occupancy charts and fiddling with the timer schedules accordingly.

The system isn't perfect. I had a few issues with the hub connection dropping out, and one day the dining room inexplicably showed a temperature of 61 degrees in the app. But Heat Genius has since rolled out a software update that improves the reporting of the Footprint mode, and gives you manual control of Whole House heating via a traditional wall-mounted thermostat. Unlike my old heating system, this new one is improving all the time.

Every so often you come across a new technology that significantly upgrades a particular experience. You know them when you use them – an MP3 player instead of a Walkman, TiVo instead of a VCR, the iPhone. You can add intelligent central heating systems like Heat Genius to that list. Don't underestimate how useful it is to be able to control your heating remotely; and, with its intelligent Footprint mode and smart plug support, Heat Genius moves into smart home territory.

We disliked

After six months of testing, I've ditched the TRVs in favour of whole house heating as, with a young family, we seem to use all our rooms all the time. I like the idea of handing my heating over to an algorithm; but I also need to trust it, and I'm not sure that I trust the technology yet. There are too many failure points. In a traditional system, your heating is either on or off – here, there's a wireless controller and a boiler controller, plus radiator valves, IR room sensors and smart plugs.

Final verdict

A Heat Genius system is a pricey investment. A typical five-room setup (with a Heat Genius Hub, boiler controller, TRVs and PIR sensors) can cost over £700. The good news is that you don't need to spring for the full setup straight away. You can start with the basics, and add to it over time as and when you need more functionality. But even the starter configuration is streets ahead of any dumb heating controller you might currently have. It's not the sexiest of upgrades, but this is the future of home heating. It's genius.

But whereas the competition uses fancy interfaces to hold content and run on complex operating systems, Google's little streamer is content just sitting there and waiting for your other devices to tell it what to stream.

More impressive, though, is its price. From day one the Chromecast wowed with its cheap price and it can now be had for as little as $32. It's similarly bargainous in the UK: just £30 - less than a third of the Apple TV's RRP.

On launch, the services that tied in with Chromecast were limited and very much a work in progress. But 15 months on, the list of compatible apps is impressive.

Most of the big hitting services are now compatible, with Netflix, YouTube, Vimeo, Hulu Plus, Pandora, HBO Go, Starz and Showtime Anytime etc... all ready and waiting in the US, and BT Sport, BBC iPlayer and more in the UK. You can find a complete list of Chromecast-compatible apps on the Google Chrome Store.

Music is really restricted for UK users, with even the lone Pandora app support no good for us due to licensing restrictions. The key addition here would be Spotify, but there's a wide range of services that could become available. The truth is that the 'casting' method of getting video onto your TV is simply not very compatible with music.

We're sure that this will change (Google can be very persuasive…), but there are major limitations on built-in support at the moment.

Google's Chrome browser on Mac or PC lets you mirror a browser tab to your TV, meaning that you can theoretically send any of these services to your TV that way, but there are issues with this.

If you stream video via the compatible apps, the content is streamed directly from the internet to Chromecast without traveling via your phone or tablet.

But if you mirror a browser tab, you're effectively streaming video to your computer from the internet via your router, then streaming it back to your router and then streaming it out once more to your TV, resulting in heavy network traffic.

If your network is flaky, this will result in choppy performance. We tested on a variety of networks and found results were variable but a clear network (around 8-10Mbps down) should be able to handle it. Browser streaming options are Extreme (720 high bitrate), High (720p) and Standard (480p).

Using Chromecast, though, it's clear that it's designed for use with portable devices in mind. You won't find a Chromecast remote in the box or a main menu tying all of the apps together like on an Apple TV or Roku 3. Recent firmware updates have soothed this problem giving users the ability to use their TV remote to control some functionality, but at the end of the day you'll still need to keep a device running the app within arm's reach.

Chromecast rivals

All streams originate from a special "Cast" button that's built into each compatible mobile app - your device is the remote.

Currently, Windows Phone 8 users, who don't have many options among app-filled streaming technology, are totally out in the cold for Chromecast support, with only third party YouTube app TubeCast being compatible. So Chromecast is only really suited to those with Android and iOS devices.

Despite these limitations from the big names, Chromecast has extra potential to it thanks to developers getting creative with the Google Cast SDK.

Apps like AllCast enable Android and Apple iOS users to display video and photos through the Chromecast. Which is useful since Google somehow neglected to add this feature to Android.

Both major media center apps, VLC and the Plex app will happily stream to Chromecast, which is perhaps the best way to get your library of downloaded videos up on the big screen. Photo Caster is a free app that enables iOS users to put their photos on-screen similarly.

Media Browser is an app for iOS and Android that streams media content stored on any computer in the house, giving the Chromecast home theater PC (HTPC) granting capabilities. You can even stream Podcasts from a few apps.

The way Apple integrated its AirPlay streaming solution deep into iOS means that it inevitably has better support when combining an iOS device with an Apple TV, but as long as developers continue to use the Cast SDK, we will inevitably see almost as widespread support for cross-platform solutions - iOS, Android and Chromecast all working together seamlessly.

Sure, Roku has its Roku SDK, but it's easier for many developers to make their apps compatible with the Android-based Chromecast. It requires a little bit of retooling rather than learning an entirely new ecosystem, as is the case with the Roku.

Between its universal nature, rock-bottom price and ease of setup, Chromecast is massively tempting as a little TV add-on.

Design and interface

Chromecast is so small it could easily be mistaken for an oversized USB thumb drive with a little more heft to it.

That contrasts with Apple TV or Roku 3, which sit as separate boxes, and often have extra outputs, such as for audio. It looks more similar to the Roku Streaming Stick, but don't be fooled - the stick doesn't use casting, it runs apps onboard like the other Roku devices.

Chromecast just is one big HDMI plug, with the exception of its power cable.

It's a simple black unit, likely to blend into the colour of most TVs (though if it ends up sticking out of the side noticeable, it'll be somewhat more intrusive).

If your TV is wall-mounted, Chromecast could be really awkward to implement depending on your TV's HDMI port positions. It might also not fit into the space for HDMI ports in some setups, so Google has included a short HDMI extender cable.

It gets around immediate problems, but be aware that at 72 x 35 x 12 mm, Chromecast might be an awkward fit.

Powering Chromecast can be a little more complicated depending on the age of your television, because it can't run on the power from the HDMI port alone.

On the rear of the unit is a micro-USB port, and Google has included a five-foot micro-USB-to-USB cable in the Chromecast box along with a power adapter that plugs into the mains.

Ideally, you wouldn't use the latter of these - if your TV has a USB port on it, as many Smart TVs do, you can use that as the power source.

Otherwise, you'll have to plug in, and it's possible you'll find that five feet isn't enough. Again, it's not a big problem, but it's worth being aware of.

Once it's plugged in and ready, Chromecast's software setup is not complicated at all - in fact, it's barely existent.

It's a matter of visiting Google's Chromecast "getting started" website on a laptop, tablet or smartphone, downloading and installing some software, and connecting the device to your home WiFi network.

Google has provided apps for each platform that take care of this for you, with the Android version especially good – it does almost everything for you.

On iOS, for example, you need to switch to a Wi-Fi network created by the Chromecast so that you can then tell it how to join your main Wi-Fi network – it's easy enough, but requires a bit of annoying back-and-forth to the settings.

On Android, it's all handled for you invisibly – you don't need to manually change Wi-Fi at all. It's impressive.

Once you've set up, Chromecast is basically ready to go. It's always on, so when you want to use it, just switch the HDMI input you've got it on and fire media at it. When there's nothing playing, you generally just get a screensaver, showing pretty photography.

Content and performance

Chromecast finally gives Android owners an official media-relay option that broadcasts content from their smartphones and tablets to a TV in similar way to Apple's AirPlay technology. That it works across Android, iOS, PC and Mac is even better.

There's a "Cast" button that's usually built into the top right of all of the compatible mobile apps - it looks like a rectangle with broadcasting bars (like a Wi-Fi symbol) in the corner.

It's easy to recognise, despite Android being full of similar rectangles these days (and Apple's AirPlay symbol being somewhat similar).

Tap the "Cast" button and you'll be offered a list of Chromecast devices on your network, so just choose which one and you'll see the screen spring into life, loading the video or audio content you selected.

The app then becomes a remote, basically, enabling you to control the screen. The likes of Netflix even give you a custom screen on the device, ditching playing the video there as well in favour of big buttons for controlling playback easily.

Video quality is great from most online sources - Netflix in HD looks as good as you'd hope. We did encounter some freezing issues towards the end of a film, but pausing and restarting got us back in action.

Netflix is also capable of streaming from the website on PC or Mac natively (not using the tab mirroring feature) to Chromecast, but when we tried this, the audio was often a tiny bit out of sync.

Not enough to make it unwatchable, but it was a bit distracting. Most of the time, when you send video over to the Chromecast, it picks up quickly. Generally, once you've started playing a video, you can exit the app and start doing other things - and this applies both to mobile and desktop.

This means Chromecast can act as a second screen in a couple of cases, particularly when used with desktops or Android devices, letting you browse the internet or do something else on the computer while a tab with your Gmail, Twitter feed or a video is running in a "casted" background on the big screen. Google also announced at its developer conference that it would release new software that would enable Android phones and tablets to work as controllers for some Chromecast games.

However, it's not suitable as a second screen option for work; it's just a mirror of something you've already got open, so if you want to interact with it, it needs to be done on your main computers screen. There's also noticeable two-second lag between the computer and the TV.

That's a similar amount of consistent lag experienced when using Apple AirPlay mirroring on a Mac computer, but it is at least consistent - it doesn't suddenly hang or get choppy, for the most part. But here's where AirPlay mirroring from a Mac shows up Chromecast's limitations: the browser extension is just that - browser-based.

Showing off a photo you retouched in Photoshop, a document you want a group to proofread in Word, or any program outside of the Chrome browser tab you're casting requires diving deeper into an options menu for a hidden command that's deemed "experimental" by Google.

It's buggy and slower than Apple TV's full computer mirroring. Chromecast is not meant for mirroring system-wide applications -at least not yet.

App limitations

The Chromecast tab extension is also limited to Chrome at the moment and may never work outside of the Google-owned browser. That means FireFox, Internet Explorer, Safari and Opera users are out of luck if they had hoped to "Cast" using their favorite browser.

While Google has opened up the Chromecast API for building applications, it's still forcing everyone to use Chrome for tab casting from a computer.

Chromecast also doesn't require an entire Apple TV device to sit in your entertainment console or force you to wire up with a lengthy power, HDMI and optional Ethernet cable.

Its plug-and-play nature means that it can be transported much more easily and fit into a backpack to carry to a school presentation or business meeting (we used Apple's iCloud version of Keynote to show a presentation from a Chrome tab), hotel room, or friend's TV. That flexibility may be worth its inexpensive price alone.

There is one potential of inflexibility, though. The total lack of built-in apps or direct method of control (such as a dedicated remote) means that if your device runs out of battery or is in another room, you can't play anything.

We had a few little niggles, such as a photo-casting app that forgot the Chromecast after each use and had to hard quit and restarted.

Most of these are probably up to developers to fix, though, and as things mature, we expect they'll improve.

Verdict

Google's take on an AirPlay like universal streaming service is hugely impressive, not just for its price, but because it works well, on many platforms.

It's possibly the perfect companion device to an older TV with no smart features, and it's certainly the cheapest way to get Netflix up and running in your living room if you can't plug in any other compatible devices.

We hope that developers will also be able to work in some other interesting Chromecast options for the future, provided the technology allows it - something equivalent to the big-screen gaming that AirPlay enables for Apple users would be great to have cross-platform, for example.

That said, this option is now being covered in Google's forthcoming Nexus Player, so don't expect Google Chromecast to get gaming features any time soon.

We liked

Chromecast is brilliantly easy to set up, gave us little hassle after the first few minutes, and then worked really well.

You quickly become accustomed to the idea of just reaching for your phone and beaming something over to it - just like the future should be.

The streaming quality is generally very good, and it's quite reliable, especially for a product that's still fairly early in its life. It's also impressive that it works so well on all platforms.

At $30/£30, we definitely like the price. It's well into impulse-buy territory, and we do think it's worth picking one up just for its potential, even if you already have a way to stream the services it currently works with.

We disliked

The lack of apps was the simple, major problem when Chromecast originally launched. It was fairly well-supported in the US, but elsewhere it needed fleshing out... and it has been.

The only thing you might dislike about Chromecast is its reliance on the phone in your pocket or the tablet on your coffee table. But for anyone who keeps those things with them, it's not a problem and in fact for many it's a more convenient way of arranging things.

There are a few other things we'd like to see, such as a bit more polish to improve things further – faster loading of videos in some apps, broader support in basic Android apps, stronger streaming from desktops, for example.

Verdict

Chromecast is an inexpensive, easy-to-use way of accessing streaming on your TV. All the major video streaming apps are compatible and you soon find yourself using it on a daily basis.

If it cost more, we'd say it might be worth looking at the Amazon Fire TV or the Nexus Player, but at this price how can you possibly argue? Chromecast is fun enough, robust enough and has enough potential that thoroughly recommend it to anyone without a smart TV.

Introduction, design and fitness metrics

Fitbit Surge is the fitness tracker that has so many new features, the start-up company behind it calls it a "superwatch" next to the more normal Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Charge HR.

There's good reason for that label. The final version I tested has built-in GPS, a heart-rate monitor and real-time workout data, all fan-requested capabilities that raise the price.

It's certainly a step up from the Fitbit Force that was recalled for causing skin allergies and never saw its promised smartwatch functionality, though a few more rashes have been reported.

At $250 (£200, AU$350), Fitbit Surge reclaims lost territory and squares off against just as pricey fitness trackers, like the Basis Peak, and pricier ones, like the Garmin Forerunner 920XT.

Yes, its specs make it the most powerful Fitbit yet, but is it ahead of this stepped-up competition or gym class-awkward among its brawnier peers? Time to put it through my paces.

Design and display

Designed for workout performance, the Fitbit Surge fastens a noticeably larger LCD display to your wrist, and it's able to easily cycle through multiple stats. Gone is the single-line OLED.

This backlit, always-on interface allows you to keep tabs on your steps, miles, active minutes and heart rate on a black-and-white, 1.25-inch screen.

Fitbit Surge upgrades to a touchscreen, and puts three physical buttons at your fingertips. It's just more control to set everything from workout timers to GPS tracking to music controls.

The display is not in color and doesn't fit as much information on one screen like the Garmin Forerunner 920XT, but now there's no need to cycle through by pressing a single, tiny button.

I do wish that the Fitbit Surge included an option to cycle back to the current time after a while – and came with additional faces besides the four preinstalled watch faces to make the watch portion more relevant. An update could easily fix these oversights.

Tucked underneath the watch band is an optical heart-rate monitor and at ends of the straps is a strong wristwatch clasp that is easier to fasten than Fitbit's usual two-pronged approach.

I nearly lost my Fitbit Force in a parking garage before driving 30 minutes away and then 30 minutes back to fetch it – all because of that previous ill-conceived design.

The new watch clasp is two Fitbit-sized steps in the right direction. It's also available on the Fitbit Charge HR, but not the Fitbit Charge, so avoid that version if you tend to lose things.

While the Fitbit Surge functionality is more advanced, the square look and bigger size is akin to a dated, '80s digital watch. It's not fashionable, yet stands out more than previous Fitbits. It doesn't help that it comes in only black, with blue and tangerine "coming soon."

At its thickest point, the watch case is half an inch thick off the wrist and its strap is an inch wide. That's about 1.5 times wider than the Fitbit Charge HR band and tough to hide.

The large, rubber-coated lugs at the top and bottom of the Fitbit Surge make tucking it into a shirt sleeve an extra workout Fitbit failed to advertise.

Fitbit metrics

Fitbit Surge now has a total of eight sensors crammed into its large frame, which, along with the LCD touchscreen, accounts for its expanded size.

This means it can track all sort of movements beyond a fitness gadgets' routine metrics of steps, distance traveled and calories burned.

An altimeter, for example, is here to monitor how many floors you've climb in a day. That's a stat that's not available in all Fitbits, including the popular Fitbit Flex.

GPS is a completely new sensor to the Fitbit family. It can map your runs using Google Maps while generating step-by-step graphs for elevation, pace, heart rate and calories burned.

The best part is that Fitbit Surge's satellite tracking works without your phone. You can leave that at home, a feature that's not available in the new Apple Watch.

There's something motiativing about reviewing your entire run laid out on a familiar overhead map and trying to best it the next time. You know you need to push it at certain landmarks.

Fitbit Surge's GPS tracking isn't the most accurate I've tested, with noticeable smoothing around corners and, at times, off-track routes that are a street and a half over.

All is not lost, however, as these GPS errors are few and far between. More often, I found Fitbit's always-inflated step counts to push me to my 1,000 steps goal faster than expected.

My higher-than-normal step count did stay consistent. That made day-to-day goal-beating just as important and at least kept me consistent with my friends and family wearing older Fitbits.

Run tracking, without or without GPS, can be initiated right from the watch, so there's no need to go to the app screen or press a secret pattern of buttons to get started.

A post-launch Fitbit Surge firmware update has been announced in order to bring bike tracking to that list. The new software will also bring Multi-Tracker Support so you can wear as many Fitbits as you want.

Needless to say, I never felt robbed of fitness tracking modes with the Fitbit Surge. The app also has a menu for food planning, but it remain cumbersome to track and is worthless.

All of the collected data syncs to the Fitbit app as well as an easier-to-study web interface, a bonus that the mobile-only Jawbone Up products don't offer.

What's it like as a running watch?

As running watches go, the Fitbit Surge is fairly standout in design. Hailing from somewhere in the Apple direction, it's a stylish wrist piece in it's own right, hailing from a family of consistently- styled bands and trackers.

The tracking element has been dragged across to the Surge, along with GPS and HR tracking to give you a fuller picture of your performance.

It's immediately obvious that this is more of a fashion item rather than a hardcore 'ultramarathon' tracker, which is by no means a bad thing.

Out of the box the Surge impresses with the speed of setup. Just charge, slap on wrist, hit the 'Run' option in the menu, confirm Free or Treadmill run (GPS on or off) and crack on.

The strap is a traditional strap and buckle affair allowing enough play for the HR sensor to read correctly, and stays neatly put in use.

The slightly canted screen makes glancing at stats mid-run a pleasure, and the slightly rounded contour of the back is comfy enough for long sessions.

The 'quick start' button let's you skip the 'standing on the pavement staring at a GPS icon' bit, which is nice.

The GPS itself picks up very rapidly indeed, getting a lock seconds after hitting the open air even in crowded central London.

We liked the vibrate alerts for pause/start and GPS lock, and if you're looking for other sports to track there's a plentiful selection on tap, from 'hiking', 'weights', 'elliptical', through to 'spinning', 'yoga' and a mysterious 'workout', the latter intended as a catchall.

While running most of the screen real estate is fixed to distance and overall time, with just the bottom bar being swipeable between HR, average pace, pace, clock, steps, calories.

For a smartwatch or fitness tracker that's fine, but for a pure running watch it's a little weak. The sensitivity of the screen to swipes seems variable, possibly due to the small area involved. The upshot is it's not easy to skip between stats on the move.

Heart Rate zone training is especially fiddly - it is possible to see which one you're currently operating in via a system of tiny dots, but it's not that easy to read on the move. It is possible to create HR zones of your own instead of using the defaults, (create in app or PC then sync), but you'll have to keep checking obsessively to stay on track.

You can receive call and text notifications while running, hit the top 'action button' to view alerts, home button to dismiss, and you can even control iOS music by double-pressing the Home button. However, there's no social pestering, and no calendar alerts, which is a double-edged sword in connectivity terms.

Accuracy wise the HR monitor is a mixed bag - tested back-to-back against a Suunto HR chest strap on one occasion it spent the first 2k or the run varying around 10-5BPM out of sync, while we fiddled with the position and strap tightness. Finally it settled down to track the chest belt accurately, albeit on a slight delay.

However, removing the Surge and replacing it triggered the same behaviour, in spite of our previous experience in positioning etc. Once setup correctly it's accurate enough, but getting that setup seems a little hit and miss, and if you're not in the habit of running with a chestbelt as a control you'll not know it's out of whack.

The GPS tracked us accurately, on the upside, and the Fitbit step counter algorithm was as generous as ever, with us hitting our 10k target before lunch some days.

Heart rate monitor, sleep and smartwatch features

Coupled with the runner-friendly GPS feature, the Fitbit Surge has a heart-rate monitor that constantly tracks your heartbeat for what the company calls a "PurePulse."

Really, it's an optical heart rate monitor that sits on the underside of the watch and reflects a pair of green LEDs off of your skin to calculate changes in blood volume.

This HRM technology is no different what's found in the Fitbit Charge HR, which keeps tabs on your beats per minute. But the Surge does have a helpful trailing BPM indicator on the LCD.

And it's wholly better than the heart monitors found in earlier fitness trackers, like the Withings Pulse O2. Those forced users to pause to calculate their heart rate.

Of course, I've always found the chest-mounted Polar Smart Heart Rate Sensor tell the truth vs any wrist-worn HRM. But as an all-in-one solution, this Fitbit works fine in most conditions.

Its always-on LCD also fixes the problem we had with the Fitbit Charge HR heart rate monitor. That version's display went to sleep, complicating running and actively watching your BPM.

Sleep tracking

Sleep tracking, when it works, is a bonus feature that's just as important as any wide-awake health metric. The problem is that it doesn't always work in fitness trackers.

Jawbone Up24 is the perfect example. It logs fairly accurate wake/light sleep/deep sleep stats for us, but too often we forget to set it to the sleep mode. Or forget to wake it in the morning.

Fitbit Surge remedies that, along with the Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Charge HR, with automatic sleep detection. It starts logging sleep within minutes of dozing off.

It sure beats having to set the band into sleep mode with a long press of a button. That was always a little backwards and now it's fixed. The only thing you need to set is the convenient silent alarm that vibrates to wake you and not the person next to you.

Sadly, Fitbit is known for providing a very basic sleep timeline: asleep in blue, restless in aqua and awake in pink. Worse, Fitbit Surge's patterns don't always reflect other trackers.

I found it to be harder to read my overly simplistic sleep timeline vs the minute-by-minute sleep analysis provided by the Jawbone Up24 and Basis Peak sleep tracker.

What the Fitbit line really needs is a new way of displaying the sleep tracking data it collects. Its scrunched-up timeline is hard to read, so the automatic sleep detection is less meaningful.

Fitbit Surge's sleep tracking feature is a fantastic idea, one that's just as important as steps, but it doesn't follow through with anything that can be considered accurate or helpful.

Smartwatch features

Fitbit Surge comes through with overdue smartwatch capabilities in a big way, thanks to its oversized square display.

This shows a scrolling Caller ID from incoming calls and SMS alerts that can be read in full. Is a call or text worth pulling your phone out of your pocket or should you keep on running?

The Fitbit Surge solves that problem and also gives you control over your mobile music with a few swipes or taps on the new wristwatch.

Double tapping the left button brings up a hidden menu for interfacing with your phone's music. I used Google Play Music and could skip tracks, pause and play music.

Music playback did require enabling Bluetooth Classic, which was confusing at first and drains the battery quick. But it was effective once I re-synced the watch to my phone.

Just don't expect to store music on the watch itself. Fitbit Surge is large enough and doesn't need internal storage to make it even bigger.

Fitbit Surge compatibility

Chances are, if you own a modern day smartphone, Fitbit Surge works with it. That's because the necessary app is compatible with iOS 8, Android and Windows Phone handsets.

Fitbit is the first mainstream wearable manufacturer to invite Microsoft's loyal customers into the fitness stats-syncing fold, and it actually goes a step further on Windows Phone 8.1.

Testing it out on my Nokia Lumia 830, I was able to tell Cortona to log food and activities with the sound of my voice. Saying "Fitbit, I ate a salad for lunch" searched the database of 350,000 foods.

This would make Microsoft's platform the ideal choice for Fitbit users, but food logging is still too complicated in the end. I was forced to describe the salad and its size to a nauseating degree.

The Fitbit ecosystem is all-around more inclusive except when it comes to Apple Health. Sadly, the fitness-focused startup as opted out of syncing its data with iPhone's wellness app.

Waterproof, battery life and verdict

Fitbit Surge is as waterproof as a smartwatch gets by matching the Pebble Time and Pebble Time Steel, according to the official specs. It's listed at 5ATM, okay for a depth of 50 meters or 164 feet.

However, confusingly, the company still says while "it's rain and splash proof and can stand up to the sweatiest workout," owners should "remove before showering or swimming."

I didn't have any problem submerging my Fitbit Surge for a few minutes. It didn't brick my $250 gadget and will almost certainly survive lengthy, sweat-filled workouts or heavy rain.

Fitbit Surge battery life

Fitbit Surge excels in a lot of areas, but it falls behind its predecessors when it comes to battery life. That's expected given its large black-and-white LCD and new GPS capabilities.

The problem is that Fitbit promises its new "superwatch" can last seven days with heart rate monitoring and activity tracking enabled. It advises turning off GPS and music controls.

My Surge didn't live up to that stamina in tests. It gave me about four and a half days between charges before it quit, even when minimally using its GPS capabilities during the week.

Given the Apple Watch, every Android Wear watch and my phone require daily charging, that's more than acceptable. It takes about an hour and a half to recharge a Surge.

What's infuriating is that Fitbit Surge uses a proprietary charger - one that's different from the two other recently released Fitbits.

At first, I was excited to see that the Fitbit Charge used the same proprietary USB charger as the Fitbit Force. I had two of the same charger.

Then I got the Fitbit Charge HR, which had a slightly different charger, and then the Fitbit Surge, which had its own unique charger. What?

Yes, I now have three brand new Fitbits with three different chargers. The company lost its chance at creating a ubiquitous fitness charger among its ecosystem.

We liked

This is, without a doubt, the most powerful Fitbit yet. It's the best of its brand, thanks to the ability to track GPS-mapped runs without a phone, control music on the run and check your heart rate in real time.

There's a lot going on within this sensor-filled fitness tracker, and it has a 1.25-inch display to prove that all the metrics are working at the same time your blood is pumping. Best of all, it syncs with newer Windows phones in addition to iOS and Android devices.

We disliked

Fitbit Surge tries to be a jack-of-all-trades, master of "run," but it falls short in every way. It's not as accurate as the Garmin's top-tier fitness tracker and not as subtle as an activity band. It's big, bulky and doesn't have all of the premium features to back up its size.

Its sleep tracking capabilities haven't evolved, the steps count is still inflated and the fact that this is the third recent Fitbit with the third proprietary charger is a joke. Why must they all be just a little bit different and incompatible with each other? I'd also ask for a color e-paper display instead of a black-and-white LCD, but the battery life is already shorter than advertised.

Final verdict

Fitbit Surge is meant for budget-conscious power users who are in need of a smarter running accessory. In this way, it runs laps around Fitbit's more casual wearables, like its Fitbit Flex or Fitbit Charge, thanks to GPS-mapped runs, basic music controls and smartwatch-like notifications.

The catch is that Surge is still designed to be worn on a daily basis. That doesn't work out, because it's shaped like a clunky running watch. It's significantly bigger than every other Fitbit and doesn't blend in with normal wear.

That's the price of having a built-in GPS, a touchscreen interface, a heart-rate monitor and automatic sleep tracking. Fitbit Surge is set up to fill the void between a fitness tracker and a real running watch. It does that, but is only recommended if you can't afford the more reliable Garmin Forerunner 920XT.

The Fitbit Flex may have been superseded by the newer Fitbit Charge and Fitbit Charge HR, but one of the company's best trackers is still a popular option thanks to lower price points and its reliability.

Announced at CES back in 2013, the Fitbit Flex combines the step-counting technology that made its One and Zip products so useful, and places it on the wrist for convenience.

This big design change has some pretty big advantages. For a start, the fear of having the small sensor pop out from a pocket while walking is gone. With the wrist mounted option, you always know where the device is.

The second major benefit is for sleep-tracking. While the Fitbit One offered the ability to track sleep by slipping the sensor into a soft, velcro arm band, the Flex leaves the sensor permanently attached, allowing you to switch modes without removing the device at all.

Unlike the Jawbone Up, the Flex consists of two separate parts - the sensor and the strap. The sensor itself is smaller than the One, thanks to the fact that it doesn't include an LED display.

Instead, five LED lights indicate the number of steps taken during a day, and are only activated by double tapping the device.

The rubber wristband is lightweight, but a little simplistic in its design. Unlike a watch strap or even a bracelet, the Flex uses a plastic grey latch to poke to plastic prongs into a series of holes on the band.

Getting the Flex closed the first time can be challenging, but it does quickly become second nature. It's not as comfortable or effortless as the Jawbone Up, but it is functional.

A whole range of colored straps are available for Flex users, which allows users to customise the look of the device to suit their own personality. And because the actual counter simply pops into the strap, you can chop and change, unlike the Jawbone devices.

The Flex strap has even opened up to third party designers, so you can now buy gold and silver bracelets from designers like Tory Burch.

These bracelets aren't exactly cheap – but they do have a certain elegance to them that no other wrist-bound fitness tracker is offering. They're also completely optional.

One other noteworthy aspect of the Flex band is the clear bar that sits above the LED lights in the actual tracker unit. This band allows you to view your progress while wearing the band.

But after a few weeks, that clear band was already showing signs of wear and tear, with scuffs and scratches, despite a blatant lack of gruelling conditions.

Of course, Fitbit offers a range of bands in a variety of colours, which might be a nice way (although expensive) to work around this problem.

Power to the people

One of the most immediate joys of using the Fitbit Flex over the Jawbone Up is the inclusion of Bluetooth 4.0 wireless syncing. Instead of having to manually remove the device and plug it into your phone to sync, the FitBit will periodically wake up and connect to your phone, keeping your stats up to date.

The catch is that at the moment, wireless syncing to mobile still only works with a very limited number of devices.

While device support has improved dramatically since our initial review, adding both flagship Android devices and the latest iPhones, it's still far from perfect.

We tried to pair the Flex with an Xperia Z2, and got wholeheartedly rejected. Then a couple of weeks later it just started working.

While this is currently a major frustration for Android users, there is good news on that front with Google announcing Bluetooth Smart support as part of the OS, which should theoretically give Bluetooth 4.0 syncing support to a much wider range of devices.

Support for the Flex has also arrived on Windows Phone 8.1 devices, which is welcome news for all the Live Tile lovers out there.

The Flex does also come with a small USB dongle for syncing to Mac or PC. It works well, but is nowhere near as elegant a solution as the mobile syncing.

One thing that does work in the Flex's favour is battery life. Despite the inclusion of Bluetooth for wireless syncing, the Flex still managed to almost match the Jawbone Up for longevity when worn side by side.

While the Up can be pushed to 9 days of use - depending on how active you are - the Flex tended to last seven or eight days.

Sure, that's a step down, but the convenience of wireless syncing makes it all worthwhile. Especially given it also offers some kind of real time indication of your daily progress in the form of five LED lights, while the Up has nothing.

The question of accuracy

Like a high-tech hipster, we tested the Flex by wearing it on our weaker arm, with the Jawbone Up right alongside it. Despite the proximity of the two devices, the results were quite varied.

On the sleep front, the Jawbone was easily the stronger device. Nights spent getting up and down to unsettled children were accurately broken up by the Up as times awake, while the Fitbit app claimed that sleep was just a little unsettled.

But when it came to step counting, the devices offered such varied results that you had to wonder how they could both claim to count the same thing.

Without fail, the Flex reported a significantly higher number of steps taken than the Up. On a day where we conquered our 10,000 step goal on the Flex, the Up would bring us back to earth by reporting only 8,000 steps taken.

To test which of the two was more accurate, we physically walked 200 steps, counting as we went. Neither device tracked the steps 100 per cent accurately, although the Flex did come up slightly closer to the mark.

How that extrapolates to larger numbers is unclear, but there's a real question mark over the accuracy of the wrist-mounted device, which is something we didn't encounter with the pocket-mounted One or Flex.

Steps to 'appiness

Fitbit's app is easy enough to come to grips with for even the most novice of users, but does let you drill down into more and more layers of information.

That said, it still struggles with food tracking thanks to a lack of internationally localised cuisines, although that is something that can be worked around thanks to the third party app ecosystem and services like MyFitnessPal.

There have been some massive improvements over the past few months with the Fitbit app, allowing a much easier social connection to friends to allow you to harness that competitive edge.

Fitbit has also launched IFTTT compatibility, which will automate many functions and help improve the overall function of the device with very little effort.

Which goes back to the verdict we came to in our Jawbone Up review, that the Fitbit is a much more useful fitness tool, while the Up is a lifestyle tech accessory.

The Flex does start to veer to the accessory side of the fence with its design, but it's app keeps it firmly in the fitness tool category.

Verdict

The Fitbit ecosystem is a great way to start using technology to keep on top of your personal health.

While the Flex is starting to show its age a bit, like a fine wine it has actually improved with time. The fact it's now more affordable is also a welcome one.

There is still the question of accuracy, with high step counts seemingly too-easy to obtain thanks to inaccurate algorithms.

The wristband itself could also use a little more work. It's lightweight and comfortable, but looks more like the watchband on a kid's watch than a truly stylish piece of tech. Fitbit has addressed this with third party bands, but for most people they are a little too highly priced and opulent.

All that said though, Fitbit has shown the strengths of its platform. Wireless syncing is essential in this product lineup, and having a strong app ecosystem is a huge benefit to fitness trackers out there.

With the Charge, Charge HR and Surge all available now, the Flex is a great starting point for anyone looking to join the Fitbit market. But it's still far from the company's best product.

Introduction, design and comfort

Augmented reality is an older technology but, like virtual reality, is starting to regain attention again.

Mostly known for making printers and sensors, Epson branched out into the world of AR with the Moverio BT-100 a couple years ago. The design was clunkier and was solely for enterprise purposes.

The new Moverio BT-200 model remains a cumbersome device but after shedding 60% of its weight, is far sleeker than the BT-100 and offers up more features that take it beyond the office space.

Still, at $699 (£568, AU$849) a pop and fairly experimental, Epson has a ways to go to make the augmented reality device more accessible for everyone.

Design

A colleague of mine noticed me testing out the BT-200 and said, "I can't decide if that's the coolest thing ever or the most ridiculous." It's true, the glasses look a bit silly though when the shades are popped on, though they don't look as odd and instead take on a futuristic visage.

The BT-200 are also a far cry from Google Glass. Where Glass is just a tiny speck seen from one eye, this Moverio model fits on your face like normal spectacles - except they're larger and reminiscent of coke bottle glasses.

A bendable nose-guard sits on the inside, allowing you to better fit the glasses to your face. It also can lay flat on top of prescription glasses. Further adjustments can be made with the plastic arms and rubber stabilizer fins.

Wearing these outside of the house or office is frankly, something I can't see happening. In fact, I can't even imagine anyone wearing them in the office. They're not attractive and downright awkward.

Display

The new Moverio smart glasses project a transparent 960 x 540 resolution display (yes, it appears the resolution has been decreased since the BT-100) in front of wearers' eyes using two "Ultimicron" ultra-compact, high-resolution, full color LCD projectors that are capable of projecting 3D images.

The glasses are fully transparent but two removable covers provide varying degrees of contrast and have been useful for Netflix or gaming. There's also a lens insert for prescription glasses which you can ask your eye doctor to fulfill.

Comfort

I was pleased to see that I could use the BT-200 over my own glasses because I couldn't really use my own frames with Google Glass. However, it wasn't a comfortable experience and the combined weight forced me to hold the whole thing up on my face to stop it from sliding off. Now that I think about it, generally speaking the Moverio really pushed down on my face.

The discomfort may have been due to my heavy frames though. With lighter frames, the BT-200 actually sit and stay on pretty well even when walking around. One colleague of mine didn't experience the extra weight sliding around when he used them and his prescription glasses aren't as large as mine. Other colleagues who didn't wear glasses every day didn't like the feel and couldn't get the nose-guard to adjust properly, but didn't think it was excessively weighty.

After hearing impressions from several people with different face shapes and eyesight requirements, I think it's safe to say that the BT-200s aren't for everyone.

Features, performance and verdict

The AR glasses run on a version of Android 4.0, which feels outdated when you first turn it on. It's still a familiar interface, so that is a relief. There wasn't any lag while navigating the main screen but there were definitely laggy spots during gaming.

Motion sensors detect your head's movements, and Dolby Digital surround sound pumps noise into your ears. There's also a front facing camera that lets you use augmented reality apps with it - though there aren't many apps you actually can use.

There's a textured touchpad the size of an iPhone 5 that lets you navigate the interface and plugs in via a proprietary connector. It can be disconnected for easy storage and is surprisingly responsive and light despite housing the battery, processor and other components.

Along with a micro USB charging port, a volume rocker can be found on the right side and a button that lets you adjust brightness, 2D/3D effects and volume within the interface lies on the left. A handy microSD slot also lives on the left. The top holds the power and lock button while the bottom has a home, list and back option.

Audio is available through a headphone jack on a clip on section of the wire between the touchpad and smart glasses.

I was able to secure the BT-200 better on my face with larger headphones, though Epson's included a pair of earbuds for your convenience.

Apps

The first Moverio was touted as a niche device that could be used in offices and by manual workers, like delivery people and field doctors. Those applications are still present, but now games and entertainment have entered the mix.

You can tune into Netflix or play mini games that involve the touchpad, but they're sparse and play more like demos. There's a Moverio Apps Market but again, the selection is slim.

YouTube also works in a knock-off app, but you can browse the web and read articles without too much fuss.

The games on the main screen of my BT-200 were clunky and got old quickly. Netflix works well enough, but the tiny display doesn't do movies or TV shows like Daredevil any justice.

I was told that many people with DJI drones were fans of the BT-200 app, because it allowed them to safely fly their drones. Apparently, a few companies are also testing out the real world applications as well. Aside from these two areas, it doesn't seem like there's a wider consumer appeal with the meager amount of apps available.

Battery life

The battery life has held up surprisingly well. Epson says the smart glasses last up to six hours depending on usage. The BT-200 went down to 55% through two days of testing involving gaming, watching Netflix and general exploring.

Recharging just involves plugging the touch pad into a micro USB wall socket and only takes a few hours to charge up. Since the smart glasses aren't doing anything too intensive, I'd say the battery could last more than a few days.

We liked

There are also plenty of ways Epson has tried to make the smart glasses work, like including shades and a nose-guard. The battery life is also satisfactory, lasting me through a few days worth of testing.

We disliked

The general look of the BT-200 could be improved. The glasses simply aren't very comfy and look really silly. Frankly, I couldn't see anyone wearing these in public unironically.

The software is also in greater need of attention. Sure, it's familiar and easy to navigate, but seeing KitKat or even Jelly Bean would be an upgrade. Also, more apps. There's simply not much you can do without apps.

Final verdict

You can buy the Moverio BT-200 for $699 (£568, AU$849) right now, but that doesn't mean you should. It's meant for the enthusiasts and developer community more than anything, and really not worth picking up just yet.

With virtual reality hitting its stride and finally finding a place in the mainstream as worthy tech, augmented reality is still grasping for a foothold. The Microsoft HoloLens seems to be changing that and, with stronger design all around, Epson could probably get there too. Right now, the Moverio BT-200 smart glasses just can't cut it.

Introduction, display, design and comfort

As wearables continue to become more commonplace, they're continuing to push forward in more spaces, including the fashion industry.

Misfit was one of the first companies that 'got it' with the Misfit Shine. Although far from perfect, it's simple, sleek and above all, disguised as a simple fashion accessory; you wouldn't know the tech was inside unless someone told you.

Now, Misfit has released a sportier and more affordable version known as the Misfit Flash, but it doesn't sacrifice the familiar design.

At just $50 or £50 (about AU$55), Misfit is giving people a quaint little fitness tracker that gets the job done. But if you want a more feature-rich device, it's best to look elsewhere.

Display and design

The display on the Flash is anything but flashy. There's no OLED screen - or any screens at all. Rather, it's a plain, solid colored button. Instead of opting for the Shine's tapping input, the Flash requires a solid push to get the LED indicator lights twinkling.

The LEDs tell you the time and your progress on daily goals. This can get confusing, but you can customize which lights pop up first in the Misfit app on your phone. I still had a hard time discerning what was what, though.

While the Shine has an anodized aluminum finish, the Flash is made from a thermoplastic polyurethane/polycarbonate combo. In short, it feels like a rubbery plastic. It's also actually made of the same plastic as the Misfit Shine's wristband and has flat sides.

It doesn't have a premium quality look, but since it's aimed towards the wallet-conscious, sporty crowd, this can be excused. Still, on first glance it's not much to look at, and I'm wondering where the "fashion" angle is. I suppose the fact that it comes in a variety of colors - seven, to be exact - is a perk, but it generally felt like I was wearing a cheap child's toy.

There is however, a practical benefit to the Flash design. One complaint of the Shine was that it would often break free of the wristband. The Flash's pod can only be inserted from underneath, meaning it'll stay snug inside the wristband as long as you're wearing it.

Even though it looks like a kid's bracelet, the Flash has been a durable tracker and definitely won't break if you drop it. My wearable hasn't even shown signs of wear and tear despite my constant usage. It's even waterproof up to 30 meters, meaning showers and dishwashing are all OK activities for leaving the Flash on.

Comfort

The band is easily one of the most comfortable fitness tracker straps I've used. It doesn't get in the way of any jackets and most of the time, I hardly notice I'm wearing it.

While hiking during a particularly hot day, the Flash didn't feel super gross from sweat even after four hours trekking up and down hills.

It also fits nicely on my small wrist, which is a huge plus from me because I have such a hard time finding perfectly-sized wearables.

The band's clasp is a little difficult to fasten if you're aiming for the very last opening. Still, it still doesn't hold a candle to the Fibit's array of nightmarish clasps.

Performance, compatibility, app and battery life

The Misfit Flash has a 3-axis accelerometer and can measure steps, calories burned, and distance along with sleep quality and duration.

However, I found that the Flash is far less precise than other fitness trackers I've used.

The end of my four-hour hike yielded about 17,000 steps from the Flash. But my Microsoft Band and the HealthKit app on the iPhone 5S both tallied up around 20,000 steps. It's worth mentioning that I put both wearables on and the phone in my pocket at the same time. I also subtracted the amount of steps I took in the morning before my hike from those numbers.

Sleep tracking was also sketchy at best. I used the Flash in conjunction with the Microsoft Band to see how the two stacked up against each other and got vastly different results. Unless I'm reading them wrong, the Misfit app doesn't do a very good job displaying my sleeping habits.

The Misfit wearable tracks sleep through your movements automatically, while the Band requires a button push to begin its movement tracking. The latter also uses a heart rate monitor to check on your resting heart rate. The Flash is left at a disadvantage compared to Microsoft's sensor beast, so it's understandable that the numbers it collected weren't the most accurate.

Automatic tracking is nice though, since I'm the type of person who would forget to push a button every night and every morning. That said, perhaps an automated solution is not the most exact science to track sleep.

Compatibility

Like a lot of other fitness trackers, the Flash can be used with almost all mobile devices including the iPhone 6 and 6 Plus all the way down to the iPhone 4S, if its running iOS 7 and later.

Though available to use with the Shine, Windows Phone compatibility is still "coming soon" for the Flash.

Battery life

Perhaps the most appealing feature of the Flash? The tracker's super long battery life and the fact that it requires no charging.

Lack of cords alone has helped it stay on my wrist longer than most other wearables simply because there's no need to take it off since I don't have to worry about juicing it up.

There's also hardly anything to charge in the first place, since the Flash utilizes Bluetooth 4.1 or BLE (Bluetooth Low Energy), to sync up with your smartphone.

When the six months of battery life is finally up, all you have to do is replace the coin cell battery, just like you would with an analogue watch.

The app and interface

The Flash app has a straightforward user interface that is easy to read but scrolling through the different days or weeks can be tedious.

There are different tabs where you can view your weekly and daily step output, check your sleep patterns and monitor your weight. Similar to Jawbone's app, you can also connect with friends to share and compete to "celebrate activity."

Like other fitness tracking apps, this one also has graphs depicting metrics. I like the goal chart in particular, which you can swipe up to view, because it lets me know how many goals I've hit and gives me percentages for each day.

The sleep charts are less clear, unfortunately. The app simply doesn't do much to really tell me what the different colored bars mean.

Verdict

Discrete with no cords, the Misfit Flash is a decent fitness tracker that has drawn a lot of attention. That said, this is not for people who want something with more detailed metrics.

We liked

The long battery life and price tag are the real winners here. Even if it turns out not to be a fit for you, you're not losing much plunking down 50 bucks on this thing.

Paired with its rugged durability and comfort, the Misfit Flash can hang out on your wrist just about anywhere, including underwater activities. This is one of the few wearables that you can actually wear wherever you go and for as long as you want.

We disliked

Just because it claims it can do everything, doesn't mean it can do it well. The Flash just didn't seem to cut it in the accuracy department. So, if you're worried about a device accurately tracking every step and every minute of REM sleep, look elsewhere.

Misfit also wants its line to be the best looking fitness trackers out there but the Flash isn't much to look at.

Final verdict

The Flash is a forgettable device. It doesn't do enough to warrant applause, but it's not outright awful, either. At best, it's an affordable, entry-level fitness tracker. At worst, it's a fancy pedometer.

It's also not much to look at, and I can't help feeling like I'm wearing costume jewelry. It seems Misfit knows this, which is why the Swarovski Shine was launched. That tracker appeals to the more fashion-conscious types who want a little more glitz and glam from their accessories.

But since I'm not willing to break the bank paying for a mediocre fitness tracker just because it "matches my outfit," I'll settle for the Misfit Flash. You can't really expect more with a price tag of $50, but you do get what you pay for.

Introduction and design

Update: Google has halted production on its experimental wearable, but Google Glass 2 may secretly be making rounds. Matt's original review is below.

Google Glass is the controversial wearable that still has its sci-looking beta testers turning heads and being peppered with questions. How does it work? What does it feel like? And, of course the inevitable, well, can I try it?

The increasing number of Google Glass invites has led to Project Glass being open to everyone in the US and now the UK, so curious, tech-savvy early adopters can answer most of these questions on their own.

It's a little easier for them to say "yes" to Glass now that it's been upgraded with more memory and new apps. There's a speedier 2GB of RAM on board instead of 1GB and 12 new apps including Shazam and Live Stream. The Google Glass app list is officially over the 50 apps threshold and the most recent update puts all Android notifications in the top right corner of your eye.

But there's one query all prospective Glass owners all struggling with right now at checkout, and it's a question I get all of the time: is Google Glass worth it?

YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p4vyBswDQvg

To answer that burning question, I turned a critical eye to Google's wearable computer and tested its Explorer Edition of Google Glass for eleven months. I also upgraded to the brand new 2GB model.

With the sound of my voice, I took hands-free photos by saying "Okay Glass, take a picture." I instructed it to upload the resulting point-of-view image to Twitter and Facebook and attached a caption, all with voice commands.

I saw flight information automatically beam to my eye with a gentle Google Now reminder the day before traveling. The weather for both my departure and destination cities, and directions to the airport were already being provided by this instinctual software. All of this data appeared in the top right corner of my vision, all without the need to take out my smartphone.

Google has continued to make the complicated ownership decision easier by adding more to its Explorer Edition heads-up display. In addition to the new 2GB version, an update late last year saw a tweaked form factor that made prescription glasses compatible with attachable frames.

Google has even been throwing in a free pair of frames or premium shades with all new orders since mid-April. Moreover, new apps and updates to the linear operating system that weren't available at launch make the current Google Glass Explorer Edition a tempting buy.

Still, this new Project Glass model is better at addition than subtraction. While features have been added, the price hasn't dropped. At $1,500 (£1,000, about AU$1,589), Google's experimental wearable is exorbitantly priced for the average person. It's also best if you're an Android, not an Apple person.

Compatibility with the iPhone has improved thanks to the launch of an iOS MyGlass app and the ability to read text messages, but it stops short of tapping into Glass' hands-free SMS response capabilities. Maps navigation also requires MyGlass to be open on the iPhone, not in the background. All of these features are missing for Windows Phone 8 users entirely, though technically any Bluetooth phone can offer Glass tethered data with a personal hotspot enabled.

Google Glass is very much a prototype, even after more than 20 months of being in the hands and on the faces of tens of thousands of beta testers.

But that's partly why this out-of-reach, futuristic-looking curiosity is so fascinating, despite, or possibly because of the massive cost to your Google Wallet (that's actually how you have to pay for Google Glass). Peoples' mind=blown reaction, more so than snapping photos hands-free and getting directions that turn with your head, makes whomever is donning Google Glass a walking wonder.

How to get Google Glass

Google undoubtedly wanted Glass in the hands of developers who will make the experience better, more so than curious individuals who want it for personal use. Therefore, developers were the first to qualify for Google Glass invites.

Now it's for sale to anyone living in the US and UK. Google threw Project Glass into open enrollment for 24 hours on April 15 and then permanently made it available a month later. Good things come to those who wait, too. All new Google Glass models come with free frames for prescription glasses or a free sunglasses shade attachment that typically costs $225 (£175, about AU$239).

Signing up for the normal Google Glass waitlist in June of 2013 after Google IO gave me access to an Explorer Edition beta code in November, while my friend who registered in December received an invite less than three weeks later. That alone shows how much easier it became to receive an invitation.

Strict rules still limit who can ultimately take advantage of the invite code and purchase a prototype. For example, you must be 18 years old and a US or UK resident, so adults living in the other parts of Europe or Australia aren't eligible. These age and country-specific rules are still in place.

The fit

Google Glass now ships to US and UK addresses, though the company still encourages beta testers to pick it up in person at its New York, San Francisco or Los Angeles offices. In the UK, "base camp" is in King's Cross, London. But across the pond in LA, specifically Venice Beach, is where I went for my "fitting experience" with a friendly Glass guide named Frank.

The Google employee helped with my Google Glass unboxing, adjusted the nose pads, tweaked the delicate nose stems and shaped the malleable titanium head band until it didn't sit so crooked on my face.

Within ten minutes it looked perfect, or at least as perfect as one can appear with a wearable computer sitting on their face.

The look

Though pliable, the titanium head band remains durable as it stretches from ear to ear. It runs alongside a plastic casing that hides Glass' key components and gives it an overall clean look. This subtle style makes the exposed parts like the camera lens in the front stand out even more - for better or worse.

Everyone's attention is also immediately drawn to the adjacent cube-shaped glass prism that sits above the right eye. It has an acceptable 640 x 360 resolution and hangs just out of the way of the wearer's line of sight. For the wearer, this personalized display acts as a much bigger screen, one that's equivalent to a 25-inch HDTV sitting eight feet away.

The Google Glass dimensions are 5.25-inches at its widest point and 8-inches at its longest point. It's too long and wide to fit into my pocket, even though I've been able to carry a Nexus 7 tablet in my jeans' back pocket with a little squeeze.

Society has banned fanny packs and the titanium head band doesn't collapse, so storage options are limited. When out and about it's either on my face or in the complementary case, which I stow in a backpack. There's no in-between.

The new Google Glass is almost indistinguishable from its predecessor, and the fact that it comes in the same colors doesn't help you tell them apart. The options are black, orange, gray, white and blue. Or, as the Glass guides insisted: charcoal, tangerine, shale, cotton and sky.

Charcoal and cotton, the two non-color colors, appear to be the most popular, as they were initially sold out when I first entered my invite code to buy Google Glass. Luckily, before my seven-day invite expired, both options became available and I chose white. The choice made online actually didn't matter until I got to the on-site appointment. I was given one last chance to switch colors during the moment of truth.

The glaring exception to Glass' svelte design is the battery that rests behind the right ear and juts out rather noticeably. It's too big, yet it's not big enough for a full day's charge. Battery performance did improve with the Android KitKat update in April, but more power from this energy-eating wearable is still a priority of Explorers.

Also prevalent among beta testers that I've talked to was Google Glass succumbing to summer heat. I experienced this problem first-hand on a hot, but not-too-hot day of horseback riding. Air bubbles began to distort the reflective mirror that caps the Glass prism.

The good news is that Google was quick to the rescue, speedily shipping me a a new Google Glass unit and asking me to mail back the broken version. For a brief moment, I had $3,000 (£2,000) in my hands and awkwardly on my head. I didn't pass up the chance to foolishly wear both at once.

The funny this is that horseback riding, with two hands occupied, was one of the most useful moment I've had as an Explorer. I was able to issue photo and video voice commands while properly holding onto the reigns and saddle. But my experience, and that of almost every other Explorer I've talked to recently, proves that Google Glass is still very much a gadget in beta.

The feel

Even with the bulkiness of the battery and durable frame, Google Glass is extremely lightweight and comfortable resting on my face. It weights just 42 grams (1.48 oz) and because everything, including the screen, is just out of my line of sight I often forget I'm wearing it.

At first, Google Glass did give me slight headaches as I strained my right eye to focus on the tiny prism in the top right corner of my vision. The team at the Venice headquarters did forewarn me about temporary Google Glass headaches, instructing me not to use Glass for more than a few hours the first couple of days. It's incredibly unnatural to have just one eye focus on a screen while the other goes without use, but my eyes and brain adjusted to the phenomenon in a few days to the point where it's now intuitive.

Like a modern smartphone, there are few physical buttons and ports on Google Glass. That's because most of the interaction is done via a long 3.25-inch touchpad on the right side. Underneath the touchpad is a micro USB port for charging the device and on the top is a camera button that's great for quick snaps in noisy environments.

The most discreet button is tucked away on the inside on the touchpad and near the temple. Giving it a light press turns Google Glass on and powers up the all-important apps.

Interface

Fitting Google Glass to your face is a highly personalized experience. Same goes for setting up the software. Getting it on WiFi, pairing it with a smartphone and running through a handful of apps for the first time all occurred on-site at Google. There's a web-based tutorial for people who have Google Glass shipped, but the experience is better appreciated in person.

There, I finally understood why everyone wearing Google Glass constantly cranked their head up as if they have a nervous tick. The default wake up angle is 30 degrees. This head gesture is a touchpad-free way of turning the display back on each time it goes blank to conserve battery life.

Configuring WiFi for the first time proves easier with Google Glass than any other device I've owned, backing up its futuristic look with a "this is how it should've worked in the past" reaction.

Selecting a router name on the Google's in-office Chromebook Pixel, entering the password and staring at the automatically generated QR code got me connected to the internet within 10 seconds. The same setup on mobile devices usually requires entering the wrong password a bunch of times on a cramped keyboard. Luckily, an expensive Chromebook pixel isn't required to complete the task at home. The same functionality is available on the MyGlass website and matching Android and iOS apps.

Tethering

Tethering Google Glass to a smartphone can be just as easy, even if that device is an iPhone. Google is eager to play well with others here, allowing Glass to pair with my iPhone 5S via Bluetooth. Of course AT&T, in its infinite wisdom, won't allow people clinging on to a grandfathered-in unlimited data plan to activate iPhone's personal hotspot setting, so it didn't work on my personal iPhone handset.

For this reason, and because the voice-enabled SMS responses don't work even when Google Glass is successfully paired with an iPhone, I opted for the larger Samsung Galaxy Note 3. I wouldn't have had a way to respond to texts without it, and wouldn't have been able to get directions hands-free due to iPhone's navigation limitations. Glass can't initiate directions while an iPhone is in sleep mode.

Glass generally works better in step with the Android platform and Google Play's MyGlass app. The tighter integration makes for a smoother experience and has proved problematic for Apple's walled-garden.

Google Glass operating system

Google Glass is all about eliminating the all-too-common temptation to take your smartphone out of your pocket and look down at its infinitely distracting screen. So once I had data up-and-running, I launched into Glass' pre-installed features list and didn't look back down.

I was able to take my first hands-free photo by simply saying, "Okay Glass, take a picture." From here on out, I used the "Okay Glass" voice command to initiate all of the apps, whether my intention was to Google something, record a video or get turn-by-turn directions.

My first photo and all subsequent snaps land in the Google Glass XE 22 linear operating system, which is controlled by sliding forward and backward on the touchpad. The newer Android KitKat interface works the same exact way, only it's a little smoother thanks to a behind-the-scenes performance upgrade.

The Google Glass OS is similar to the card-based user interface that has worked its way into many of Google's product including the Google Now-inspired Android Wear smartwatches. The idea may need a redesign of its own pretty soon. At first, this content slideshow contained a handful of my previously taken photos, old searches, archived Hangout conversations and CNN Breaking News updates. I was generally able to find something within a few swipes.

A week later, sliding the touchpad back through the all of the built-up content became less fluid. Add to the fact that there's a nasty bug that resets you to the beginning of the timeline if you slide too quickly on a tethered device in screencast mode, and it's downright frustrating.

Google issued a Google Glass patch that bunches photos together to reduce this known clutter, but the timeline can still turn into a cumbersome mess.

Connecting Google Glass to a computer through its micro USB port offers an imperfect remedy to offloading content. It's limited to exporting photos, and on a Mac, Glass doesn't show up as an external drive. OS X users are forced to open up iPhoto or the Image Capture to download their images. Windows 8.1 makes it considerably easier because it pops up as a connected drive.

There's not a whole lot of options outside of copying photos to your computer, unfortunately. Clearing non-photo content from the card-based timeline has to be done manually using Glass and rearranging or importing old files isn't possible. Developers can use the micro USB-to-PC connection to delve into code using the Android SDK, but that's not meant for the average user.

It being a Google product, my second task was to I asked a question. "Okay Glass, what's the population of China?" It read back the answer as "1.351 billion as of 2012," data derived from the company's extensive Google Knowledge Graph. There's no anticipate functionality (or room to implement it on the tiny screen) that lays out the populations of India and the US in comparison. That feature, which I wrote about at the Google IO 2013 conference, is still reserved for computer and mobile-based searches.

Digging a little bit deeper to test the Google Knowledge Graph, I asked "How tall is Morgan Freeman?" which resulted in the computerized voice reading aloud "6' 2" (1.88 m)." The synthesized voice isn't as smooth as Morgan Freeman's natural oration, but it matches the one used for Google Maps directions on phones and tablets.

Remarkably, Google Glass doesn't contain a natural speaker to audibly transmit voice prompts that are the result of Googling questions, playing CNN videos and asking for directions. Instead, it vibrates behind the right ear through its Bone Conduction Transducer, a hearing aid technology that relays the information through the skull. Best of all, it's nearly inaudible to everyone else. The personalized viewing screen meets a personalized audio frequency with Google Glass.

There's no ordinary speaker to project sound from the device, but there is a microphone to pick up whatever the user says after delivering the "Okay, Glass" prompt. It enables Google Glass to act as the world's most expensive Bluetooth headset for hands-free phone calls and video calls. The sound quality isn't a problem - it's actually very clear - but asking it to "Make a call to..." followed by someone's name on your MyGlass contact list is limited.

Currently, the maximum number of contacts Google Glass supports by saying their name is ten. Initiating phone calls and sending messages to anyone outside of this favorites list requires tapping the touchpad to enter the often-overlooked manual "Okay Glass" menu, scrolling to the message, call or video call, and scrolling through your entire Google contacts list.

It's unfortunate that the quicker voice-controlled method of setting up conversations is capped at ten contacts. It's even more confusing, Google forces you to manually enter the "Okay Glass" menu to scroll through your greater contact list. There's no "Making a call to someone outside of your ten favorites" option at the end of the ten.

The microphone is also essential for transcribing messages: emails, text messages, Google Hangouts and adding photo captions on social networks. Sadly, sending texts is limited to Android phone tethering.

Turn-by-turn directions via Google Maps isn't exclusive to Android devices anymore, but Apple only allows third-party app developers to initiate directions while the iPhone is awake. Having to exit from sleep mode every time you want to get directions negates the phone-free utopia Google Glass is driving toward. This inconvenience may still be worth it; Google's maps on Google Glass are more sophisticated than the still-hobbled Apple Maps on iOS devices if you don't own a car. It includes options for driving, walking and public transit routes whereas Apple's own maps do not.

Even more amazing in Google Maps for Glass is the fact that turning your head changes the map orientation in real-time. Left and right twists of the neck swing the stationary triangle indicator to the left and right. Google Maps with surreal head-tracking follows you every step of the way without the need to tap a compass button to orient your perspective on a map.

Apps

Glassware refers to Google Glass apps that developers create specifically for the wearable. It's modeled after the Google Play store and iTunes App Store, only the Glassware app list is less populated at just 64 apps, a very slow uptick from the 37 apps available seven months ago. Even Chromecast has more apps.

Ten of these 64 apps were created internally and Google Now is by far the most impressive Glass app. It's always located one swipe back from the "Okay Glass" home screen with contextual cards for information like the weather, sports teams I follow and directions to places I've recently searched for on Google.

Traveling anytime soon? Just like the Google Now Android and iOS app, this predictive software will dig through your email and bring up your flight information. Better yet, the weather will change, giving you the forecast to both the city that you're in now and the place you're about to go. Top that off with directions to the airport complete with the approximate travel time. It's all done automatically like you'd expect from a device from the future.

As you'd expect, Gmail is here and it pings you whenever an important message hits your priority inbox, Google Music plays songs with a "Listen to..." voice command and YouTube gives you an audience for your 720p #throughglass videos. You can't actually explore the rest of YouTube, though. The same applies to the write-only Google+ application.

Google's more straight-to-the-point Compass app shows the four cardinal directions and their intermediate directions, and reads the degrees aloud with the tap of the touchpad. The Stopwatch and Start Timer apps would replace Siri as my favorite way to countdown my time-sensitive tasks if it could set the clock with voice commands. Siri still wins for now.

The aforementioned Hangouts app now supports sending photos in replies thanks to April's upgrade to Android KitKat. Visually being able to answer "What are you up to?" with more than just text via voice dictation makes Hangouts a better experience. After all, snapping photos is Glass' biggest draw.

Google Glass games have been theorized with plenty of augmented reality YouTube videos of what the gameplay from the first-person perspective. Google's own Mini Games app takes advantage of all of the tiny sensors onboard to do just that. Its five AR games involve balancing objects in the world in front of you, shooting clay targets in the distance and playing tennis anytime, anywhere.

Third-party Google Glassware

Big name developers have already gotten onboard with Google Glass. Social networking apps like Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Path and now Foursquare are meant for sharing status updates, photos and videos to your timelines. Twitter and Google+ handle Google Glass best, pushing updates with a #throughglass hashtag, making photos from Explorers' first-person perspective easy to find.

The newest addition to the Google Glass app list includes Livestream and Shazam. Say "Okay Google, start broadcasting" and it'll will beam whatever you see to your video channel without delay. Curious about a song? The awkwardly phrased "Okay Glass, recognize this song" identifies the artist and title. These are smartphone app repeats, but Glass either gives you a neat new perspective or a hands-free way of searching.

Evernote is now less than one button press away thanks to the voice-controlled Google Glass and IFTTT can automate everything in life including turning on WiFi-connected lights in an apartment without the need for an "easy button."

News gathering is also an act of the past with updates for CNN Breaking News, The New York Times, Mashable and Elle fashion. There was a Wall Street Journal app, but it has disappeared, a common occurrence among the budding Glassware app list. Explorers have hardly noticed.

Weather Alert, which is supposed to notify me of dangerous conditions, is one of the newest Glassware apps. In the end, I disabled all but CNN because apps, especially Mashable and Weather Alert, pinged me with too many unimportant alerts or false alarms to the point of annoyance. They need to work more like the iOS and Android Breaking News app that lets users dictate which stories are important to them.

Google Glass can also encourage lifestyle changes with sporty apps like Strava Cycling, Strava Run, Golfsight by Skydroid and the new LynxFit trainer. For the first time since carrying around a smartphone to aid my exercise routine, my two hands were suddenly free to grip my bike handles and not worry about checking a phone's screen to see how far along I was on my route. Food apps like AlltheCooks Recipes and KitchMe have the same effect. Washing your hands and cooking while reading the ingredients aloud without dirtying your phone is less messy with Google Glass.

Word Lens, now a Google owned company, is toward the end of the alphabetically listed Glassware app store, but it's one of the most impressive apps by a third-party developer. It can scan and visually translates words in English to and from Portuguese, German, Italian, French and Spanish. It can overlay words on top of an existing foreign-language stop sign or menu using Augmented Reality, just like the iOS and Android app by the developer. It's a little more uncanny when seen through Glass.

Another useful Google Glass app offers closed captioning for real-life conversations. Before you call it creepy, keep in mind that Captioning for Glass is intended for deaf or hard of hearing. Conversations appear in the top right corner of the screen after saying the command "Okay Glass, recognize this." So far, it's an Android-only app, but could be extremely useful for people with disabilities.

More Google Glass apps to come

Google opened up its Mirror API so that web-based services can take advantage of Glass and now there is a sneak peek at the all-important Google Glass SDK. Developers are still waiting to download the final version of this app-driving software, but there's no official release date for the development kit.

A lot of developers are also bringing their apps from iOS and Android devices and making the experience more personal. Hang w/ is once such video streaming app and it happens to be backed by rapper 50 Cent. Its goal is to allow people to broadcast and narrate interesting moments in their lives or follow people who are doing just that. Celebrity involvement could make Google Glass' point-of-view concept and apps like this the next Twitter.

When the final GDK makes its way to everyday developers, I expect the card-based Glassware user interface to explode with too much content just like my Google Glass timeline. Google would be forced to categorize apps and implement a rating system, and that's a good problem to have. New apps are going to be what makes this device useful more than hardware tweaks. Glass owners are currently in a state that's akin to the first iPhone without the iTunes App Store.

Camera and video

The Google Glass camera shoots 5-megapixel photos equivalent to that of the iPhone 4 camera and each picture has a 2528 x 1856 resolution. To Google's credit, it took last-generation specs and made them useful again thanks to the camera's distinctive hands-free interface and, given the right lighting, terrific image quality.

There are three ways to take photos when that 21st-century Kodak moment strikes and your quickest method of capturing it is Google Glass. Precisely saying "Okay Glass, take a picture" (not "take a photo") snaps an image within the blink of an eye.

Believe it or not, the second way is by actually blinking your right eye. This recently added Wink feature is deemed as experimental by Google, so it also picks up your eye-shutting big yawns and sneezes for awkward, unexpected photos.

The third way to take a picture is by pressing the physical camera button at the top of the hardware. It's not as forward-thinking as talking to Google Glass, but it's ideal for noisy environments in which the otherwise strong microphone isn't a viable option.

All three methods allow you to bring up the viewfinder beforehand thanks to the update that arrived just prior Google IO 2014. Saying "OK Glass, show the viewfinder" brings up the four L-shaped corners and makes lining up the perfect shot even easier. Before this update, it was trial-and-error guess work.

Photos are saved to an internal 16GB flash drive of which 12GB is actually useable memory. The operating system controls the rest. This space doesn't fill up easily, as images are 1MB on average and are routinely synced with Google's cloud storage.

Syncing photos to a smartphone through the MyGlass app is also helpful, especially when you want to edit them before posting. As of September, even iOS users are in on the Photo Sync feature. Deleting photos en masse, however, doesn't work without plugging Glass into a computer via its USB cable. It's a feature I'd like to see in the future.

Best Google Glass photos

Sunsets, friends' portraits and first-person snaps of everyday life offer the best photo results and make the camera the most rewarding Google Glass feature. Each one comes with a laundry list of caveats, though. Sunsets need to be bright, but not so bright that direct sunlight whites out the entire image.

Portraits need to be well-lit and your antsy friends can't be moving - at all. "Everyday life photos" should be read literally with an emphasis on day, and the subject needs to be close because there's no zoom function or cropping tool.

Google Glass' inability to crop and zoom either when the picture is taken or post-snap is one of the biggest disadvantages to its 100% hands-off approach to photography. I didn't miss the opportunity to take a photo of an abnormally large dog on the sidewalk thanks to Glass, but I conversely couldn't put it into a better perspective before sharing it to Facebook sans a cropping tool. That large, distracting electrical box in the periphery remains.

Most #throughglass photos are admirably untouched, a rarity in the age of Instagram. Still, basic editing functionality by beaming a photo over to a smartphone or tablet before uploading it to the world would have been valued. Google+ does a nice job with Auto Enhanced photos with a few tricks.

An LED flash and better low-light performance is another obvious Google Glass feature that's sorely missing from the prototype. Taking photos and video in dimly lit environments is almost a non-starter, cutting down on the fun you can have with it in conjunction with nightlife scenarios.

More sophisticated camera software could improve Glass in the future, but given the Nexus 5 camera problems, it might not be high on the Google's priority list when it should be No. 1.

Google Glass video

Google Glass also takes high-resolution video with all footage at a fairly steady 720p resolution. The camera's video performance mirrors its still image quality: it lives and dies by lighting and, if the right conditions are in place, provides a unique window to explore your everyday life.

YouTube : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hlvG_Lj0n5g&feature=youtu.be

This is exactly what happened when I filmed my too-often-repeated airport security line routine through the first-person perspective. Ever wonder what it's like to go through a luggage X-ray machine? Glass shed some light on the not-too-crazy-looking experience #throughglass. It also proved that airport security is way too frantic of an operation and that an indoor, well-lit airport environment is the best format for a Google Glass video.

The quality took a hit when I attempted to film rides at Disneyland. Without proper illumination on rides, it failed to capture the excitement of the theme park indoors and as soon as the sun set, the outdoor video and photo quality took a major dive along with the, by then, exhausted battery.

Google Glass filming privacy

The Google Glass POV camera perspective is the most fulfilling feature, but it's also the reason the wearable is seen as being so invasive. It's always pointing forward at people and it often elicits a half-joking, half serious, "Are you filming me right now?"

Privacy concerned individuals are usually overreacting. Still, it's an accusation every Glass user has to expect. Casinos, clubs, and a handful of restaurants and bar have unceremoniously banned the prototype even before it's readily available. Google went as far as posting nine tips on how not to be a Glasshole.

Google+ Auto Backup, effects

Google+ automatically saves photos and video through the social network's Auto Backup feature. It syncs to a private online album when Google Glass is plugged into a charger and it's within WiFi range. It's essential to meet these two conditions if Auto Backup isn't working, a complaint echoed through Google's private forums for Glass users. When it does function properly, it has some extra surprises that are worth checking out.

Select pictures are automatically enhanced with Google+ photo editing software, panoramas are stitched together right away and animated GIFs are already moving about before you say action. During the holidays, twinkle and snow effects were routinely added to photos - although it didn't look right in a lot of cases. Luckily, all Google+ enhancements are saved as a copy of the original photo in the Auto Backup folder and never shared without your permission.

Google Glass accessories

New Explorers receiving Google Glass 2 as opposed to the older Google Glass are treated to a slightly different set of accessories than what the first beta testers received at the prototype's launch.

Don't feel badly for the earliest of early adopters, though. Google allowed them to upgrade to the new version of Glass for free until February 5 and all accessories are available to buy separately for a price.

New Google Glass 2 accessories

Adding to the black-and-white box is a mono earbud, enabling better sound quality when making phone calls, listening to music and watching videos. Its comfortable in-ear design features a tiny forward-facing speaker that pipes sound straight into your ear canal the same way that Apple's EarPods do. Only its nylon-coated cable is much shorter at just 3-inches and it includes a micro USB connection at the end, not a standard RCA jack. Glass won't work with all of the normal aux cables, negating the 3.5mm vs 2.5mm debate altogether.

The mono earbud fits into the same micro USB port that's located underneath the touchpad and is used to charge Glass. Its 3-inch cable size can be adjusted by retracting it into a loop behind the ear so that there's as little as 1 ½-inches of cord dangling between the earpiece and port. The twist-off cap color that's included in the box is cotton (white). Buying an extra mono earbud comes with five interchangeable caps that match each of the Google Glass colors, but it's prohibitively expensive at $50 (£40, about AU$53).

The same can be said about the even pricier stereo earbuds, not included with Glass, that are $85 (£65, about AU$90). Because stereo earbuds with auxiliary ends won't work and would be too long, these form-fitting earbuds are the best way to completely encapsulate yourself in the Google Glass experience and you're definitely going to be separated from the rest of the world with two nylon cords running out of the micro USB port. The left ear cable extends further than the right one and lays behind the neck, making you look even more like a cyborg at this point.

The included mono earbud and separate stereo earbuds are new as of late October 2013. They join the existing sunglasses, tweaked for Google Glass 2, that securely lock into place between the two nose stems. These active shades effectively block all sunlight emanating from the real world around you. Peripheral light is only visible when looking out of the corners of your eyes, but your field of view is completely dimmed, including the still-very-visible Glass prism.

The question is what do you do with these almost flat-looking clip-on shades when they're not needed or you don't want to look like Robocop for a minute. They can be tucked away in an included micro-fiber slip case, but that's another accessory to always carry around.

Returning accessories

The same high-quality material is used in the indispensible pouch. It's Japanese micro-fiber and made from recycled material, according to Google. This soft bag fits Glass perfectly, cleans it when it's slide inside and contains a hard shell at the bottom to protect keep the prism. It's thankfully included. Ordering an extra pouch is $50 (£40, about AU$53) and may be the one thing in Google's accessory store that's worth its price.

Glass comes with an excellent micro USB cable and charger that features a flat cord to keep it from bunching and tangling. Its micro USB end is at a unique right angle, which stabilizes Google Glass on a flat surface. Better yet, it sports a two-tone black-and-white color scheme at each end. Explorers can easily distinguish the orientation of USB and micro USB's non-symmetrical design.

You won't be trying to fit the USB cable into the charger backwards thanks to Google's smart design idea. But you also won't want another one. The price for an extra is $50 (£40, about AU$53), which verges on double gold-plated HDMI cable territory. It's just a micro USB cable and charging block.

Normal micro USB chargers, used by Android devices, work just fine too. Google even notes that while Glass is designed and tested with the included charger, there are thousands of micro USB chargers out there that do the same basic thing.

Missing from the Google Glass 2 accessories lineup is the clear shield that came with the first prototype. It works just like the clip-on sunglasses minus the tinted lenses and makes you look like you're ready for weed whacking in the front lawn rather instead of a law enforcement from the fighter. They're still available to purchase separately for $85 (£60, about AU$90).

Price

Google Glass Explorer Edition is one of the most expensive gadgets from the Mountain View company, beating out its premium Chromebook Pixel laptop with an LTE chip included. You could buy five HP Chromebook 11 laptops instead and still have money left over.

It costs $1,500 (£1,000, AU$1,593) plus tax for this imperfect prototype. But that's not the total price for most beta testers. In California, the with-tax price equates to an especially painful $1,635. The Google Glass UK price includes the VAT, just like other items the Google Play Store sells.

Even though Explorers are paying top dollar, the specs are remarkably limited. Its has a dual-core OMAP 4430 chip that's really a 2011-era mobile processor designed by Texas Instruments. Most Google Glass models have 1GB of RAM, though the specs have been upgraded to 2GB of RAM for new orders

Analysts have pegged the bill of materials to be under $200 (about £120, AU$212), meaning the gross margin is $1,300 (£880, about AU$1,381) on each Google Glass sale. That doesn't take into account Google's expenses like R&D and marketing, so the actual profit is likely a lot less. After all, someone has to pay all of those Glass guides running through the one-on-one fitting appointments every day and the free domestic or imported beer that they offer you during the visit.

Warranty

Some of that money also goes to shore up the Google Glass warranty. Meant to cover defects in materials and workmanship, this limited one-year warranty is surprisingly long and reassuring given Glass' prototype nature.

Of course, the warranty doesn't include accidents, fires, software modifications and just about every other your-fault incident you can think of. Reselling Google Glass voids this guarantee just the same.

The high price of Google Glass didn't just have an impact on my Google Wallet, it made me constantly afraid of losing it or, worse, having it stolen. I'm always more anxious when wearing it in public due to its value. Not-so-funny comments like "Hey, is that Google Glass? Meet me in the back alley. Ha!" made me think twice about taking it everywhere.

As much as I wanted to capture New Year's Eve fireworks a few months ago in the city of Philadelphia, I decided against wearing Google Glass downtown. It actually helps that a majority of people I run into don't know what Glass is right now, but you can never be too careful.

There are ways to try to recover a lost or stolen Google Glass. The MyGlass website and app reports the last device location every few minutes, but it needs to either be logged into WiFi or be paired with a Bluetooth phone to do so. That makes it ineffective compared to Find my iPhone and Android Device Manager.

Price drop theories

Price is the biggest hurdle for beta-only Google Glass right now, as the Explorer Edition costs more than seven times as much as an iPhone 5S and five times as much as a Galaxy Note 3 with a two-year contract in the US. It doesn't adequately replace these devices either. In fact, it can't. It's a slave to their shared Bluetooth data when you're away from a WiFi connection.

There could be a price drop in the future, as the parts don't actually cost Google anywhere near what it's charging. The Google Glass consumer price could be dramatically cheaper, spurring everyone to get one even if they're unsure of its feasibility. Google's decision to make Chromecast inexpensive had that same "add to shopping cart" effect.

Existing beta testers are paying through the nose pads right now, but that could be because Google doesn't want everyone to own Glass just yet. It needs developers to make great apps first. Without apps, if the price as low as it could be, the general public would pick up the device and immediately put it down. It would instantly be ahead of its time.

Explorer Edition owners, who paid a premium and helped develop the foundation of Glass, have floated the idea of receiving the likely more affordable Google Glass consumer edition for free. The idea is that their theoretical free Google Glass explains the steep price. It's built in. But that may just be Explorers' hopeful thinking.

Everyone may find out the final price of the consumer version come this week when Google IO 2014 is expected to host an on-stage update about Google's other wearable that isn't Android Wear.

Battery life

Google's official estimate for the Glass' battery life is "one day of typical use." Features like video recording, however can drain the battery even more quickly, the company warns.

Avoiding these more intensive features, I found my Google Glass battery to last between three and five hours depending on how many hands-free photos I was taking in that time span. Recording a video wiped the battery out in less than an hour after continuously shooting.

That's far short of the official estimate, but keep in mind that there's a tremendous difference between being connected to WiFi vs Bluetooth via a tethered smartphone. Relying on a phone's shared LTE data connection drained my battery more quickly.

Google Glass also ran much hotter over Bluetooth, something that was pointed out to me every time I demoed Google Glass to a large group. Typically, this observation was noticed by the time it was passed to the last person to wear it.

Teardown specs indicate that Google Glass contains a puny 570 mAh lithium-polymer battery, even with its larger-than-desired battery size located behind the right ear. Luckily, the small battery size means that it doesn't take exceptionally long to charge, with less than two hours giving me a complete 100% battery life to drain it all over again.

To conserve battery life as much as humanly or cyborgly possible, I turned off head wake up, on-head detection and Wink for picture. I also carried around an external high-capacity battery pack in my pocket with a USB cable running to the micro USB port. I don't suggest this look.

Google Glass in public

Google Glass is more fun than functional primarily because of the reaction derived from donning a wearable computer in public. Onlookers' curious and questioners' amazement always turns into a flood of ways they think Glass can be used in the future. Becoming an Explorer within the first year, I have had to constantly answer questions, but that's part of the fun. Explaining gadgets to people is why I became a technology journalist in the first place.

Peoples' fascination certainly kept me occupied in lines at Disneyland, where they wanted to know more about Google Glass, take a photo, wear it themselves and take another photo. Only a handful of people knew a little bit about it, often mistakenly saying, "There's those Google Glasses!" even though there's only one glass involved. A majority of the people had no idea, timidly asking "Can I ask you about the glass on your face?"

I was able to test if Google Glass is waterproof, or at least water resistant, at Disneyland's log flume ride, Splash Mountain. It survived my drenched-in-water decision to sit in the front row, though I wisely slipped it into the micro-fiber case to dry it off immediately after the final hill. Google doesn't recommend letting liquids near the internal components, especially the battery, though Robert Scoble has proven that it can be worn in the shower without incident.

The reaction at CES 2014 was a little more muted considering all of the extravagant technology at the week-long Las Vegas conference. But I still had to field questions and tell people, no, they couldn't pick it up in the South Hall. It's still beta-only, but should be out later this year.

Not-so-fun reactions

Peoples' trepidation of Google Glass can sometimes sap some of the fun out wearing it or create wearable gadget faux pas that didn't exist before, as it did twice as CES. Its so lightweight that I often times forgot I was wearing it, including an exceptionally awkward moment when I entered a public bathroom. I wondered why I was receiving bizarre stares up until I went to wash my hands and looked in the mirror.

Public bathrooms are not Glass friendly for obvious reasons, and that's where putting it away in the case and the case inside a bag becomes cumbersome.

The second incident occurred at the Cosmopolitan Hotel, where I was walking on the outskirts of the casino strictly because I was making my way back to my hotel after a long day at CES. Moving rather quickly - not stopping - with a group of fellow tech journalists, I was approached by a panicked security guard who shouted "Sir! Sir! No Google Glass in the casino."

I took off Google Glass without protest, but found it strange considering I had a giant Canon T3i DSLR that can shoot 1080p video hanging from my neck and sitting at chest level. It didn't matter to him that I had it pointed at the casino the entire time or that most everyone I was walking with had similar recording tech on them.

Wearing Google Glass while driving has been the subject of court cases, and even when it's not on, the new technology is still in murky legal territory. People have reportedly gotten kicked out, banned or harassed for wearing it. The only way to overcome peoples' Google Glass fear is through wider adoption. Remember when cell phones with cameras were routinely banned at concerts venues?

Prescription lenses

Glasses wearers are no longer at a myopic disadvantage now that Google Glass prescription lenses and frames have officially been made available after an annoying 11-month wait.

Tech's smartest-looking early adopters can finally experience Google Glass while still being able to see the world in front of them. Nearsighted or farsighted, it doesn't matter. They can see through Google's wearable computer by looking up into the top right corner of their vision, and then see near and far by peering through specialized glasses.

Even better, the glasses attachment gives the device a less offending, more natural look and style. That's due in part to the four attractive Google Glass frames on sale: Curve, Bold Split and Thin. Of course, corrected vision comes at a price.

These compatible premium frames are currently free with new Google Glass orders, but normally cost $225 (£175, AU$239). A Google employee in Los Angeles said he didn't think the free frames deal would last very long.

Of course the glasses frames with false lenses, which means there's still the unfortunate extra step and cost of visiting an eyecare provider in order to have the specialized prescription lenses cut to size. It's still not easy having imperfect vision while looking like you're living in the future.

It's certainly better than attempting to wear Google Glass overtop of prescription glasses. It just doesn't work in most cases that I have tested out. Existing frames are usually too big to properly fit underneath of the Glass hardware and ultimately feel too uncomfortable to stand for more than a minute. It's also extra bizarre looking to walk around with Google Glass on top of crooked glasses.

Without the new prescription lenses, Google Glass can still be tested by nearsighted individuals because they can see everything on the prism that sits two inches from their right eye. But day-to-day use isn't feasible because the myopia suffers won't be able to get very far without their normal glasses.

Other manufacturers did beat Google to the market with unofficial Google Glass prescription lenses and frames. Rochester Optical was the first company to do just that as it rolls out its clip-on product, RO Gold for Google Glass. It began shipping at the start of the year for the lense price of $99 (about £59, AU$105) and the separate clip price of $129 (about £77, AU$137).

Whether you order the official Google Glass prescription lenses or opt for the cheaper Rochester Optical solution, it's essential for nearsighted or farsighted glasses wearers to find corrective lenses that work before joining and really enjoying the Explorer program.

Release date and upgrades

Google Glass was expected to have a "consumer version" release this year, but there was no official announcement timed with the Google IO 2014 developer conference in June or since then.

"[In 2014], I want to have a broad consumer offering," said co-founder Sergey Brin to Bloomberg two years ago. Maybe the fact that Glass is now available in the Google Play Store counts as that consumer offering?

Either way, what's next for Google Glass? More than any single upgrade to its tech specs, significantly dropping the retail edition's price would put it on more faces, even some of the skeptical ones.

That's certainly feasible, as a number of analysts have calculated Google Glass' bill of materials to be less than $200 (about £120, AU$212) based on the known components.

Naturally, now that the invite-only process has ended in favor of open enrollment in the US and UK, the next step is to make Google Glass available worldwide, including Explorer-deprived regions like Continental Europe and Australia.

The Google Glass consumer version is likely to contain a bigger battery, even though Google is going to struggle with the bigger form factor resting behind the ear. It's already big enough at 570 mAh.

The camera, while adequate at 5 megapixels, is also a desired upgrade for the retail version. It's one of the most used features of Google Glass, as demonstrated by all of the fun-to-look-at #throughglass photos on Twitter. I still prefer to use my iPhone 6 or Nexus 6 for pictures when it matters, especially in low-light situations. Google Glass is only used for novelty and convenience purposes.

The number of Glassware apps is going to naturally increase in the future. Its current count of 64 is just the beginning, and augmented reality games could have a really big impact on Google Glass in 2014. Further out, it could better connect with the company's broadening ecosystem, possibly integrating with Chromecast for screencasting photos and video, or the newly released Android Wear smartwatches like Moto 360 and LG G Watch R.

Google hasn't laid out an official timeline for the public version of its trendsetting wearable, but with Google Glass competitors launching over the next several months, it may fast track the release date and scope. We expect to hear more on or before the Google IO 2015 keynote, hopefully with a consumer version introduction that's as grandiose as 2012's skydiving entrance.

Verdict

Google Glass in its current prototype form is an unfinished trailblazing avant-garde piece of tech. I had a hard time wrapping my brain around. I worried about whether I'd be able to tell if it was really the next big thing or a huge waste of time and money.

Glass sure wrapped itself around my brain though, and with considerable comfort. I was able to test it easily in my everyday life and that's what Google Glass is all about: putting one's smartphone down, yet still being able to share pieces of your life with your friends and family through a unique first-person perspective.

We liked

The excitement surrounding Google Glass made wearing the invite-only prototype a thrill, but you have to be the right sort of technology-loving visionary to benefit from people's curiosity. I couldn't go a day without a half dozen people asking me about it. Explorers should expect the same.

In between all of the welcomed questions, I found taking hands-free photos, uploading them to Facebook and Twitter and adding captions with my voice to be the most entertaining part. Receiving and replying to work-related Hangout messages while cooking dinner and then getting walking directions at the spread-out CES 2014 venues made it productive.

Google Now is by far the best app of the 64 available with flight information, weather, and sports scores available based on what I've searched recently. I also habitually take advantage of being able to Google any question that pops into my brain, leaving no answer unknown with my smartphone still in my pocket

We didn't like

Using Google Glass doesn't always go as planned, especially when it comes to a full day of use. The battery life is abysmal and tethering to anything but an Android is less than satisfying. Text message replies and directions are sorely missed when using it with an iPhone.

The camera's low-light performance could be better and the microphone, while surprisingly strong, often took a couple of attempts to properly add captions in moderately noisy situations.

Price and privacy are two issues that are of concern right now. As a consumer, $1,500 (£1000, about AU$1,593) plus tax is too much to pay for most any gadget, especially one that's still in development. You do get offered beer during the Google Glass appointment, which helps ease the pain.

Final Verdict

There's nothing like Google Glass, so upon being "invited," I jumped at the chance to empty my Google Wallet for what my bank account poorly categorized as "Glass - Home Improvement." It did nothing for my home, but it did provide conversation-starting "improvement" in social settings outside of the house.

Its hands-free photo taking capabilities encouraged me to seek out more adventure that required two hands but still warranted capturing. I put down my smartphone for a record amount of time. Instead, I searched Google Now, used hands-free Google Maps navigation and responded to Gmail and texts through the built-in microphone.

The 5-megapixel camera isn't nearly as good as what you'll find on a current smartphone, especially the iPhone 5S and Galaxy Note 3, and the voice recognition software doesn't get everything entirely right. The battery life and price get everything wrong - one is too small, one is too big; it would be great if they switched.

But when you think about it, Google Glass is the first of its kind - at least with a major company behind it. The first iPhone with its pre-installed apps and novel touchscreen had the same "is this worth it or just hype?" question surrounding when Apple launched it in 2007.

Owning Google Glass is even more reminiscent to a previous generations' owning the first TV on the block. No one has seen it in person before and everyone want to come over and try it out. The intense public interest is entertaining, but not worth the Explorer Edition price for most consumers.

It's still more fun than functional right now with the promise of becoming the next big thing.

Introduction and display

The Puls wearable was officially announced during Dreamforce 2014, and marks yet another step into the tech sphere by musician and tech enthusiast, Will.i.am. Engineered by his i.am+ company, the "smart cuff" took almost three years to complete. It's clearly a labor of love for the Black Eyed Peas band member.

The current, final cost for the i.amPULS device is $399 (about £258, AU$511). It was released for early adopters and developers last holiday season as part of the i.am+ company's Make it Great program, which, according to a rep, is "an ongoing effort to source valuable opinions and insights from fashion and tech influencers across the nation."

Like the Apple Watch, Moto 360 and even Pebble Steel, the Puls cuff is attempting to blend fashion with functionality, or as Will put it during his Dreamforce keynote, "fashionology."

Notice that it's called a smart cuff - or cuff, smartband, wrist device and wearable - but not a smartwatch. According to the i.am crowd, the Puls is not a smartwatch even though this is clearly where it lies on the gadget spectrum.

Whatever it's called, this wearable is the last thing you should be reaching to wrap around your wrist. Here's why you should wait for the next generation, or maybe even skip the Puls all together.

Display

The Puls's 1.7-inch PMOLED display is hardly anything to jump up and down about. It has the similar curved appeal of the Samsung Gear S but is a bit smaller by 0.3-inches though it looks slimmer because of the thick bezel.

The Puls also doesn't have the best brightness setting. When maxed out, the screen is still duller than the power saver mode on all other wearables.

There aren't any other display features that enhance the experience either. For example, you won't find an ambient light sensor hidden on the front.

It doesn't help that the glare from both natural and indoor lighting makes the screen difficult to see. I found myself constantly tilting the cuff's face in order to see notifications. Even when using it to make a call or access its features, the screen had to be angled.

Design and comfort

Though fashion is a major marketing element for the Puls, the thick band just isn't appealing. Where larger wearables have caught the attention of people for attractive displays or interesting designs, the Puls has drawn a lot of eyes for all the wrong reasons.

The band is reminiscent of an ankle bracelet at worst and a fat slap bracelet at best. I suppose my aversion towards cuff-esque jewelry doesn't help but even the most fashion-forward person couldn't love this device.

The strap snaps open and closes magnetically which again, really reminds me of a slap bracelet. It even sounds like one when it snaps shut. If the device isn't turned on, it's difficult to discern which way to put it on. Thankfully the power button on the right side of the display can serve as a handy reminder that the Puls snaps shut on top.

The power button itself is horrendous. Turning on the Puls is easy, but turning it off requires some intense muscling. At first I thought it was just my small lady hands lacking strength, but after asking several other people (both male and female) and seeing them struggle, I realized it was the button.

There is a microphone above the screen and a speaker below which you use for calls, music and alerts. Both remain well hidden and don't detract from the overall design of the Puls, but there's not much going on in the first place.

Comfort

The band is pretty chunky in general, likely so it can fit all the internal hardware. But the Puls as a whole is still surprisingly light.

It's also pretty large for my small wrists and didn't fit right. Because it was so loose - like a dangling bracelet - it would slide around my arm and the screen wouldn't display face up or even face me because it was so heavy.

I was also told by a Puls rep that there will also be other sized bands, ones that can extend for larger wrists. So far I haven't heard about cuffs for smaller wrists.

On a more alarming note, the Puls becomes really warm after extended use. It didn't reach uncomfortable heat levels but a wearable that can't handle basic functions without heating up is disconcerting.

Specs, performance and interface

The Puls is powered by a dual core 1.5GHz Qualcomm Snapdragon processor with a forked version of Android 4.1. The 1-inch-wide cuff comes with 16GB of internal storage, 1GB of RAM, Bluetooth 4.0, Wi-Fi and 3G connectivity and GPS functionality.

It also has a pedometer, accelerometer, Siri/Cortana-like assistant called AneedA - and can make phone calls.

Performance

The capacitative touchscreen on the Puls was often jumpy, oversensitive and pretty much all over the place.

Essentially, there were moments when the screen would lag horribly and then refresh without warning. At times, the cuff's display wouldn't register my finger swipe so I'd have to do it multiple times. Once it did register, the screen became laggy and then overcompensated by opening up a different option I didn't want.

Texting was the worst part of the Puls. I don't think I was even close to mastering it after a full week of use.

The cuff employs a third-party program developed by the company Minuum. I'm not sure if it's the Minuum keyboard that's frustrating or the size of the keyboard, or a combination of both, but typing anything on the Puls is an absolute nightmare.

The only way I was able to send a text without constantly correcting the autocorrect was to use voice commands. However, the Puls adds a "sent by AneedA" signature which I didn't know was added. Equally frustrating? It doesn't seem like there's a way to remove AneedA's handiwork.

The Puls is completely untethered, meaning a smartphone is not needed for it to work. So far AT&T will be the only network carrier in the US while O2 in the UK will carry the cuff.

Calling is probably the best feature of the Puls. It doesn't work as well as the Gear S but it works well enough. I was able to hear clearly with the smartband at my side, though the person on the other end said I was a little muffled.

It seems like six to eight inches is a good distance to hold the Puls from you if you're making a phone call, though this won't be comfortable if you plan on having a long conversation. It may be useful driving, if you have the windows rolled up and music off.

In addition to calling, AneedA is the other feature that works really well.

Developed by Nuance, the AI voice assistant pulls up info from Wolfram Alpha in about three seconds if you're asking it general queries, like who Barack Obama is. But asking it to find coffee with the maps app takes a little longer.

It also handles all the voice dictation on Puls and was surprisingly accurate when texting.

AneedA can also take care of various tasks. It takes several steps for it to reach the final destination but eventually, it gets there. For example, I asked AneedA to message someone from the quick menu and it had to verify who it was, then ask what message I wanted to send. Calling commands were a bit quicker.

Interface

The interface of the Puls is colorful, simple and actually really pretty. In the home view, you scroll up and down to get to various apps. Each one is different and scrolling displays a colorful graphic that fills the screen.

There is no dedicated home page where you can see all the apps in one place. Once selecting an app, you can swipe right for a list of options or scroll down for a menu.

Swiping from the left side of the screen brings up a quick menu to get you back home, to the settings and to AneedA.

It's a simple system that mirrors smartwatch interfaces because it's intuitive and clean.

Apps and battery life

Suffice it to say, there are no apps right now for the Puls. Sure, there are the stock ones onboard the smartband - Facebook, Instagram, a Twitter-esque Whooter (formerly Twitrist), a specialized Maps app and Music but without the app store there's not much else you can do. There's also no fitness app at the moment, though I tried one during the unveiling at Dreamforce 2014.

Despite all the fuss during the unveiling, it's clear that new apps like Vibe, the one that can supposedly read your emotions, aren't ready. A SoundHound-like app is still being developed in-house as well.

A rep for i.am+ told me: "These apps are not available on our current firmware, however, we are considering some exciting new apps such as these for our future maintenance releases and updates."

Battery life

If most smartwatches and fitness trackers already have a difficult time staying alive, then the Puls has a long way to go.

I barely got a pulse after five hours of heavy usage and about eight hours with light usage (as in I left it alone without turning it off). The Moto 360 has a horrible battery life and can make it two days. The Gear S has a massive screen that glows brighter than the Puls and gets at least a day and a half after extended periods of use.

Charging the device is a confusing process, too. The prongs were made to help you discern how the charger fits into the cuff to snap shut.

But it's not that simple. You can't just glance at it then quickly connect the charger. It takes more than one try and then finally, the thing will close up. Considering it'll die shortly, the Puls fortunately takes about an hour to completely juice up.

Verdict

I don't think I've had a more infuriating experience with a device before the Puls. It's a brave venture but one that hasn't been completely thought out or fully tested yet.

We like

AneedA is like the little sister to Cortana, Siri and Google Now. It can't do as much as the other ladies but it sure gives the good 'ol college try, which is good enough for me.

Standalone voice calling is also the best part of the Puls. It's what I wanted the Gear S to be and where I think other wearables should head for the best functionality.

We dislike

Final verdict

Whenever a celebrity ventures into a space that isn't their own, it's difficult to take them seriously. But Will.i.am has consistently shown enough interest in tech over the years to make me believe he genuinely cares about it. Yes, many jokes can be made at his expense but a part of me remembers there's still a team behind the figurehead trying to make the Puls work.

This doesn't mean the Puls will be successful though. The wearables scene is quickly becoming over-saturated with people already rolling their eyes at the very mention of a "new smartwatch." The fashion angle also probably won't cut it for the smart cuff because, well, frankly it's pretty ugly.

The Puls as a whole has a long, long (very long) way to go before it reaches consumer wrists. It's the least intuitive wearable I've come across and the most buggy. Again, I'll mention this is a first-gen device that likely won't see mass production - which is good for everyone. The $399 (about £258, AU$511) price isn't wallet friendly and the company would probably take massive losses shipping it out.

The fact that it's a been touted as a "standalone communications device," or untethered wearable, is perhaps the best feature about the Puls - and may keep the smart cuff alive. Now, the Puls team just needs to fix everything else.

The Sony SmartEyeglass Attach is a new idea from Sony (surprisingly) to bring augmented reality to your run.

Well, in theory the piece can attach to any pair of glasses and could be used to improve any activity by placing info near your pupil, but the first iteration is designed for sport, and specifically running seems to be the main use.

The idea is simple and very like Google Glass: a supplementary clips onto the side of the specs (currently only the official ones used in the prototype, but could be developed to snap onto any pair) and then instantly imbues them with a small OLED screen and camera.

The project, which is open source and means that the developer community can start to find ways to use it as well, is designed primarily to help runners with navigation in new cities, allowing them to find and trot around new routes without having to stop and pull out their phone every time an unexpected street appears.

We've had a few more specs land on these: the display module has a 0.23-inch screen, with a VGA resolution of 640 x 400 pixels with 800 nits brightness and 10000:1 contrast ratio - actually pretty nifty specs for a device like this, although that confirms why the display is so grainy.

The little screen is only 0.5cm high, which means it's really unobtrusive when viewed. It can take a little while to get the fit right, but when you do any direction of head tilt still spews information into your eyes.

I obviously didn't get to try the specs out at speed, but it doesn't feel like the small screen would move around that much, so should keep pumping any information into your eye throughout a run.

YouTube : https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zpsot9IZ3Fo

The benefit here is that it can even do away with a GPS watch and have all the information accessible at all times, meaning a much more reliable way to structure a run.

The downside is that the device isn't autonomous yet, which is irritating given it's quite large and could easily pack GPS.

It's not cumbersome to wear, but it does have a large element where the battery and components are held - presumable this is why Sony's stuck a camera on the front as it seems a bit unnecessary, but if the space is there, it might as well be used.

Sony also told me that the device was possibly going to be engineered so users could place it over either eye, making it easy to customise to fit - another good step, given these kinds of devices live or die by being able to fit into user preference.

The SmartEyeglass Attach is also waterproof, as an excruciating video demo showed when the wearer threw a bottle of water all over her face, meaning you could use them when sweating without worry (although nobody could confirm to me the IP rating, so might not work underwater).

In terms of a release date, the Sony SmartEyeglass attach is coming 'in 2015' and as it's a prototype there's no word on price, nor which services or other brands will be tied into the device when it launches.

But in terms of usefulness, it feels like this new augmented reality headset could be a real winner for runners, as it's just small enough to be used without irritation. It still makes you look weird using it, but if you can get past that it would really supercharge your jogs around the park.

We liked

The idea is neat and the delivery decent - in terms of something that can show you information without needing to pull out a phone, it seems to work well.

We disliked

It's still bulky and camera feels unnecessary - plus there's no word on release date, price or battery life. Not being able to work untethered from a phone irks too.

Early verdict

A dark horse for the title of 'most interesting tech from CES' (at least in the fitness category) this could be the time when augmented reality starts to finally make an impact on decent looking specs.